ORDER

EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge.

The Court has considered Defendants' Joint Rule 30(A)(2)(a)(i) Motion for Leave to Exceed Ten Deposition Limit (Doc. 155), Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 184), and Defendants' Joint Reply (Doc. 186).

The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden of proving a particularized showing for the need to take three additional depositions. Rule 30, Fed. R. Civ. P. See Thykkuttathil v. Keese, 294 F.R.D. 597, 600 (W.D. Wash. 2013). Leave to grant the taking of three additional depositions is appropriate pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. The discovery sought is not duplicative, cumulative, or obtainable from another source. Defendants promptly sought leave to take the additional depositions upon receipt of decedent's recent mental health records. The expense of the discovery is not outweighed by its benefit, considering the importance of the issues at stake and the amount in controversy. The information sought is relevant to the subject matter at issue in this litigation. The Court has ruled that the events immediately leading up to the shooting of the decedent are in dispute. See Orders of the Court dated March 25, 2015 (Doc. 192) and March 16, 2015 (Doc. 185). Discovery regarding those events is relevant. See Boyd v. City & Cnty of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2009); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Relevant information need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable provided it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants' Joint Rule 30(A)(2)(a)(i) Motion for Leave to Exceed Ten Deposition Limit (Doc. 155).

The Court lifts the deposition stay imposed in its Order dated March 9, 2015 (Doc. 180).