Order

MARK R. ABEL, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on the motion of counsel for defendants Thomas P. McDermott and Angela McDermott for leave to reconvene the deposition of Mark Braunsdorf, President and CEO of plaintiff Compass Homes, Inc. for a period of up to one hour (doc. 69).

Claims and defenses. The complaint alleges that in December 2011 the McDermotts came to Compass and asked for a custom designed home. Compass designed the home and provided the McDermotts with plans. They did not want to pay the amount Compass estimated it would cost to build the home as designed. On February 17, 2012, Compass registered the design with the United States Copyright Office. The McDermotts took Compass's design to another architect, defendant Trinity Health Group, Ltd., who copied it without authorization. Defendant Shirk & O'Donovan Consulting Engineers, Inc. performed the structural design. Defendant Total Cleaning And P.O., LLC built the home for the McDermotts.

The McDermotts allege that they approached Compass and asked for assistance in designing and building their dream home. They provided Compass with a maximum price for construction of the home. Compass took the McDermotts' plans and turned them into an architectural work. When Compass was unable to keep the cost of construct-ing the home within their maximum budget, the McDermotts took their own plans to another builder.

Mr. Braunsdorf sat for deposition on August 11 beginning at 9:00 a.m. The other three defendants completed their examination of him at 4:08 p.m. The McDermotts' counsel requested that the deposition resume the next morning, because she had not anticipated the deposition going past 4:00 p.m. and so had not made childcare arrangements.

Plaintiff objects to the request to resume Mr. Braunsdorf's deposition because it could have been completed on August 11 and Rule 30(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that "a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours." Plaintiff also complains that the McDermotts and the other defendants have put Compass to unnecessary expense and delayed the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of this lawsuit. See, Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P.

Decision. While I believe the McDermotts' counsel should have proceeded with the deposition and completed it on August 1, I also believe that counsel should be considerate of the reasonable requests made by opposing counsel and should work together cooperatively to meet Rule 1's goal of the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of litigation. Further, I do not think a parent who is concerned about meeting family obligations should be forced to complete a deposition if there is insufficient time to do so comfortably.

Here I need additional information to decide whether the deposition should be reconvened. On or before August 18, the McDermotts' counsel is ORDERED to provide plaintiff's counsel with the areas of examination she would like to pursue and the facts her clients believe Mr. Braunsdorf would testify to if questioned. The questions may not repeat those asked by the other defendants' counsel and should not cover areas already covered by them unless the McDermotts can demonstrate that Mr. Braunsdorf may have personal knowledge of facts not elicited when questioned by the other defendants' counsel that relate to them individually. Four sets of defense counsel should not have the opportunity to dredge over facts common to the claims asserted against all defendants. Deponents have the right to have their time used wisely, and defense counsel in multiple defendant cases have the obligation to coordinate their questioning so that the witness is asked about facts common to all only once. If the parties agree to resume the deposition, they should advise me of their agreement. If not, they should file simultaneous briefs on or before August 22, 2014.