GOOD CAUSE MUST BE SHOWN IN ORDER TO DEPART FROM THE ORDINARY DISCOVERY SEQUENCE.
ROBIN FLETCHER VERSUS TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE USA INC. TRANSOCEAN DRILLING (U.S.A.), INC. AND TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 05-2992 SECTION "L"(2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198
January 4, 2006, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee sued defendant employers, seeking to recover for injuries he allegedly sustained while he was working aboard the employers' ship. The magistrate judge denied the employers' Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) motion to compel the employee to appear at a deposition and ruled that written discovery should precede deposition discovery. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the employers appealed to the district court.
OVERVIEW: The employers argued that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d), the employee's failure to appear at his deposition was not excusable because he failed to file a motion for a protective order before the time for the deposition. The district court held that the magistrate's ruling was not, as the employers alleged, an excuse for the employee, as it did more than just pardon his failure; it set forth a comprehensive sequence of discovery. The employers claimed that there was sufficient doubt about the employee's credibility to allow them to depose him before responding to his request, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), for statements he made to the employers' agents. If those statements were disclosed to him before the deposition, they argued, he could tailor his deposition testimony to conform to them. The district court held that the magistrate performed the necessary review to determine whether the employers had established good cause to depart from the ordinary discovery sequence. After performing this review, the magistrate determined there was not good cause. As this decision was supported by the law and the facts, there was no basis to reverse it under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
OUTCOME: The magistrate's order was affirmed.
