United States District Court, S.D. Florida
UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF FLORIDA, INC., and ALL SAVERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs,
AMERICAN RENAL ASSOCIATES LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
TAKE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS [DE 4281
WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants, American Renal
Associates LLC and American Renal Management LLC's
("Defendants") Motion for Leave to Take Additional
Depositions ("Motion") [DE 428. This matter was
referred to the undersigned by United States District Judge
Kenneth A. Marra. See DE 62. Plaintiffs,
UnitedHealthcare of Florida, Inc. and All Savers Insurance
Company ("Plaintiffs"), have also filed a Response
[DE 439 ], and Defendants have filed a Reply [DE
The matter is now ripe for review.
Court first notes that, in its Order dated February 5, 2018,
it stated that "[a]lthough Defendants have not
explicitly requested court permission to take additional
depositions and have not provided argument in compliance with
Rule 30 and the relevant case law, this Court will allow
Defendants five (5) calendar days from the date of this Order
to file a motion seeking leave to take up to four additional
depositions, if they wish to do so and if they meet the
requirements of Rules 3O(a)(2)(A)(i) and 26(b)(2)(C) and the
applicable case law." [DE 418]. Defendants filed their
Motion on February 12, 2018, within the time period required
by the Court.
Motion, Defendants list four additional individuals whose
depositions they wish to take. [DE 428 at pp. 1-2]. They
argue that their request is justified and in compliance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. Id. at p. 2.
Defendants also list the ten depositions they have already
taken and the subject matter of each of those depositions.
Id. at pp. 3-4.
response, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have no factual or
legal basis for the additional four depositions. [DE 439 at
p. 1]. Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants should not be
permitted to take additional depositions when Defendants'
misconduct was the basis for Plaintiffs being permitted to
take additional depositions in the past; in other words,
Plaintiffs do not believe that Defendants should be
"rewarded for [their] own misconduct." Id.
Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have not used their ten
original depositions and cannot show that the depositions
that have been taken or noticed were necessary. Id.
at p. 2.
reply, Defendants argue they have not engaged in misconduct,
and, even if they had, the misconduct alone would not warrant
denying their Motion. [DE 446, p. 1]. Defendants next contend
that they are not required to use their first ten depositions
before seeking leave to take additional depositions.
Id. at p. 2. Defendants assert that they have
justified the necessity of the depositions it has taken or
intends to take. Id. at pp. 2-4. Finally, Defendants
maintain that they have sufficiently justified the four
additional depositions sought. Id. at p. 5.
Rule of Civil Procedure 30 permits a party to take up to ten
depositions without leave of court. If a party wishes to take
more than ten depositions, she must seek leave of
court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 3O(a)(2)(A)(i). If a court grants a party
leave to conduct more than ten depositions, it must do so in
a manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(2). Fed.R.Civ.P. 3O(a)(2)(A)(i). Rule 26(b)(2)(C)
requires the court to determine whether: (1) the additional
discovery sought is "unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;"
(2) "the party seeking discovery has had ample
opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the
action;" or (3) "the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering
the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the
parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake
in the action, and the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(hi).
Additionally, "[c]ourts have construed Rule 30(a)(2)(A)
... to require a party seeking leave of court to exceed the
[ten]-deposition limitation to justify the necessity of each
deposition previously taken without leave of
court." AIG Centennial Ins. Co. v. O'Neill,
No. 09-60551, 2010 WL 4116555, *16 (S.D.Fla. Oct. 18, 2010)
(emphasis in original). "The Court has discretion to
permit or deny the requested depositions." Procaps
S.A. v. Patheon Inc., No. 12-24356-CIV, 2015 WL 2090401,
at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2015); see also Madison v. Jack
Link Assocs. Stage Lighting & Prods., Inc., 297
F.R.D. 532 (S.D. Fla. 2013).
careful review of the Motion, Response, Reply, and exhibits
thereto, as well as the Court's prior Orders and the
entire docket in this case, and after applying the applicable
law, the Court finds that Defendants should be permitted to
take the four additional depositions requested in their
Motion. Additionally, the Court takes into consideration the
fact that the Court previously allowed Plaintiffs to take
four additional depositions and provided Defendants with the
opportunity to request additional depositions in its February
5, 2018 Order [DE 418]. Moreover, the discovery deadline in
this case had not yet been reached when the Motion was filed,
and the trial is set for October 29, 2018, see DE
351. In sum, based upon all of the facts of this case, the
applicable rules and law, and in the interest of justice, the
Court shall provide Defendants with the opportunity to take
four additional depositions as they have met their burden
under Rule 30 and the relevant case law, and this is clearly
not a situation where any party is lacking in the resources
to take and/or defend additional depositions. None of the
parties in this case will be prejudiced by this ruling.
on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that
the Defendants' Motion for Leave to Take Additional
Depositions [DE 428 is GRANTED. Defendants
may depose the individuals listed in their Motion on or
before April 20, 2018.
There is also a sealed version of the
Motion filed at Docket Entry 434-1.
 There is also a sealed version of the
Response filed at Docket Entry ...