Donna Durden, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Darryle F. Durden, Deceased v. United States of America

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted the Government’s motion for a protective order and quashed Plaintiff’s untimely Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition notice. The court held that the notice was filed after the applicable deposition deadline and was overbroad and disproportionate because it sought testimony concerning all aspects of the decedent’s care during a two-week period.

Holdings

1. A party may not proceed with a deposition after the court-ordered discovery deadline merely because the general discovery period remains open; absent an extension or good cause, the court may quash the untimely notice.
2. A Rule 30(b)(6) deposition seeking testimony about the entirety of a decedent's medical care over a two-week period is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case, particularly when expert discovery is already underway and the notice does not identify a discrete factual issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should quash Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice because it was served after the court-ordered deposition deadline without good cause.
2. Whether the requested deposition was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).

Disposition

other