A court can order that a party who previously has been deposed take part in another deposition, because there were unanswered questions at the end of the first deposition and new documents have surfaced as a result of recent discovery. The plaintiff, Joseph Umbach, was deposed between 8:58 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Aug. 17, 2012. At the end of the day, the defendants' counsel indicated that counsel had additional questions, and plaintiff's counsel replied that the defendants received a full, fair and ample opportunity to depose the plaintiff. The defendants sought court permission to depose the plaintiff 3.5 hours, and argued that the plaintiff, the central figure in the litigation, claimed lack of familiarity with nearly every document and often furnished meandering or nonresponsive answers. The defendants claimed that the first deposition was not finished and that since then new documents have surfaced. The plaintiff objected that there were documents that the plaintiff had not previously seen and that questions about new documents that have surfaced should be directed at other individuals. The court rejected the defendants' characterization of the plaintiff's responses at the deposition as uncooperative, meandering and nonresponsive and found that defense counsel established at the earlier deposition that counsel had unanswered questions. The plaintiff's deposition took place prior to the production of records in response to September and October discovery rulings. The court granted the defendants' request to depose the plaintiff another 3.5 hours and observed that the deposition may take place via videoconference, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), because the plaintiff is located in another state. 

VIEW FULL CASE