MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO COMPLETE DEFENDANT ZIMMERMAN'S DEPOSITION
FREDERICK P. STAMP, Jr., District Judge.
I. Procedural History
On October 12, 2012, the pro se1 plaintiff initiated this action in this Court by filing a civil rights complaint which alleges that all of the named defendants have conspired to deprive him of fair access to the courts. The plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and asserts causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 636, this Court then referred the plaintiff's complaint to the Honorable James E. Seibert, United States Magistrate Judge, for report and recommendation.
Thereafter, the defendants all filed motions to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Seibert issued a report and recommendation recommending that this Court dismiss the plaintiff's complaint as to all defendants except defendant Officer S.A. Zimmerman ("Zimmerman"). This Court affirmed the magistrate judge's report and recommendations in its entirety, thus, the only remaining defendant in this action is Zimmerman.2
Pursuant to the magistrate judge's order, the plaintiff's deposition was taken on April 28, 2014. ECF No. 203. A notice continuing the deposition until May 8, 2014 was then filed on April 29, 2014. ECF No. 204. The parties disagreed, however, as to how long the May 8, 2014 deposition should take. Thus, Zimmerman filed a motion for additional time to complete plaintiff's deposition and requested that the motion be expedited. Soon after the filing of the defendant's motion, Magistrate Judge Seibert issued an order granting the defendant's motion because the defendant had shown good cause to justify additional time to complete the plaintiff's deposition. On May 8, 2014, the date noticed for the plaintiff's continued deposition, plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's order, a motion to terminate or limit his deposition, and a motion for additional time to complete Zimmerman's deposition and request for expedited consideration.
This Court then affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge's order granting the defendant's motion for additional time to complete the plaintiff's deposition. However, this Court directed the defendant to respond to the plaintiff's motion for additional time to complete Zimmerman's deposition and directed that the defendant respond in an expedited fashion, per the plaintiff's request for expedited consideration. The defendant also filed the deposition transcript in further support of its opposition. As the defendant has now filed a response, the Court will now rule on the plaintiff's expedited motion.
For the reasons set forth below, this Court denies the plaintiff's motion for additional time to complete Zimmerman's deposition.
II. Discussion
In his motion, the plaintiff argues that he should be allowed additional time to take Zimmerman's deposition because Zimmerman had requested to leave early because it was his day off from work. Further, the plaintiff states that Zimmerman had agreed to continue the deposition. Additionally, the plaintiff states that the court reporter had a "hunger pang" which required a recess and also that the parties spent significant time reviewing documents. As stated previously by this Court, the plaintiff's motion restated, almost verbatim, the arguments made in Zimmerman's motion to request additional time to take the plaintiff's deposition. Thus, this Court requested the defendant to respond.
Zimmerman then filed a response in opposition which painted a much different picture of the events that took place at the defendant's deposition. Zimmerman avers that the deposition was adjourned because the plaintiff had no additional questions to ask, that Zimmerman had not requested that the deposition end early, and that Zimmerman had not agreed to a continuation of the deposition because the deposition was completed. Further, Zimmerman contends that the plaintiff was able to extensively question Zimmerman about the one remaining claim in this action, whether or not Zimmerman leaked confidential information related to the plaintiff. As such, the defendant requested that this Court deny the plaintiff's motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 holds in pertinent part that:
(1) Duration. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours. The court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.
Further, as the magistrate judge noted, the Advisory Committee Notes state that "the party seeking a court order to extend the examination . . . is expected to show good cause to justify such an order." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 advisory committee notes (2000 Amendment).
Additionally, the following factors justifying good cause for an extension under Rule 30(d) include instances where "the examination . . . cover[s] events occurring over a long period of time" and where "the witness will be questioned about numerous or lengthy documents." Id. A court must authorize extra time when the exam is impeded or delayed by the deponent or another person, or "by an `other circumstance,' which might include a power outage, a health emergency, or other event." Id.
This Court finds that the plaintiff has not shown good cause why he should be granted additional time to take Zimmerman's deposition. First, because there is only one remaining claim against Zimmerman, all matters that the plaintiff could have explored should have been taken care of in the initial deposition. E.E.O.C. v. Bardon, Inc., No. RWT 08CV1883, 2010 WL 1780126, *2 (D. Md. May 3, 2010) (denying request for additional deposition time because it would be "unnecessarily duplicative"). Second, a short recess for a "hunger pang" is not comparable to the forty-five minute recess that had to be taken to replace the court reporter during the plaintiff's deposition. See ECF No. 211 *4. Further, there was no evidence that such an incident involving the court reporter actually occurred during the defendant's deposition. See ECF No. 214.
Additionally, the parties disagree as to the unfolding of the events at Zimmerman's deposition and thus it would have been unclear whether any of the Rule 30(d) instances, recited above, occurred. However, given the deposition transcript, this Court finds the defendant's version of events to be more accurate and thus finds that it is unlikely that any of the Rule 30(d) scenarios cited above occurred during the defendant's deposition. For example, as can be seen in the deposition transcript, Zimmerman did not ask to be excused early.3 Also, Zimmerman did not agree to a continuance of the deposition.4 Finally, defense counsel and Zimmerman were accommodating to the defendant and to the introduction of documents that had not previously been reviewed by the defendant, a far cry from the plaintiff's assertions that the defendant was evasive at the deposition.5 Given the deposition transcript, the plaintiff's version of Zimmerman's deposition is not upheld. Accordingly, this Court must deny the plaintiff's motion for additional time to complete Zimmerman's deposition.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the plaintiff's motion for additional time to complete the defendant's deposition is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff by certified mail and to counsel of record herein.
