What’s titled a response in opposition reads like a motion in proposition of a solution – and reinforces my opinion that underneath all of the allegations there is a very simple truth relevant to the various cases, this one McIntosh.
Renfroe has previously deposed the Rigsbys in this matter, by consent and order, outside of the discovery period. Now, after ten months have passed, Renfroe seeks to reopen the Rigsbys’ depositions without any limitations on scope or content. For the reasons set forth below, the Rigsbys respectfully request that the Court apply to Renfroe the same limitations that the Court has already provided for State Farm regarding the upcoming September 3, 2008 depositions of the Rigsbys. (emphasis mine)…
…Despite Renfroe’s unreasonable position, however, the Rigsbys do not object to Renfroe deposing them on September 3, subject to the same limitations imposed on State Farm. Indeed, because this Court has already held that those deposition topics are timely for State Farm due to the circumstances, the Rigsbys presume that the same would be true for Renfroe.
Having previously stated my opinion of the Refroe emergency, the emphasis added is simply my way of pointing out I feel Rigsbys proposed resolution is particularly respectful of the McIntosh family.
I’ve included the background in the motion with citations deleted to make it more readable. IMO the background supports the Rigsbys position; but, read and decide for yourself.
The discovery deadline for this case was November 1, 2007. Trial is set for October 6, 2008.
On November 1, 2007, State Farm filed a Motion for Authority to Conduct the Depositions of Certain Witnesses Outside the Discovery Period, which included a request to take untimely depositions of the Rigsbys. State Farm argued that because of issues regarding scheduling and the availability of certain documents, the Rigsbys’ depositions “could not realistically be set prior to November 1, 2007.
State Farm represented to the Court that “the parties and counsel for the Rigsbys have agreed, subject to this Court’s approval, to conduct the depositions on November 19, 2007, and November 20, 2007…on November 9, 2007, Renfroe joined State Farm’s motion…the Court granted State Farm’s motion on November 16, 2007 and the Rigsbys’ depositions proceeded on November 19 and November 20, 2007.
Counsel for both the Rigsbys and Renfroe agree that Renfroe deposed the Rigsbys for several hours, but they did not use the full seven hours allotted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On December 21, 2007, State Farm moved this Court for an additional hour of deposition for each Rigsby on two very narrow issues relating to certain documents that were failed to answer at their depositions due to a claim of privilege that was later defeated…On January 3, 2008 Renfroe joined State Farm’s motion…On May 23, 2008, this Court granted State Farm’s motion to compel the Rigsbys to each submit to one additional hour of deposition questioning relating to “their unauthorized use of State Farm laptop computers and documents” and “meetings with SKG members at which third parties… were present.”
State Farm then attempted to set dates for the Rigsbys continued depositions. Renfroe made no such attempt. Because State Farm and the Rigsbys could not agree on a specific date for the final hour of the depositions, State Farm moved to compel the depositions on certain specific dates, and the Court granted the motion on August 15, 2008. In compliance with this Court’s order, counsel for the Rigsbys notified State Farm on August 18, 2008 that they would be available for depositions on September 3, 2008. (emphasis mine)
On August 18, 2008, counsel for Renfroe notified counsel for the Rigsbys that Renfroe also intended to depose the Rigsbys on September 3 and that it planned on continuing the depositions until September 4 if necessary. This was the first time Renfroe attempted to reconvene the Rigsbys’ depositions since they were adjourned in November 2007. (emphasis mine)
Renfroe has not and cannot cite a single reason why it waited more than ten months after the close of discovery in this case to complete these depositions. Indeed, if Renfroe believed that it needed the full seven hours of deposition testimony from the Rigsbys (who already have been disqualified as witnesses in this case) for trial, Renfroe should have acted sooner and conducted the deposition at a time more convenient for the parties and the deponents.
A footnote to the last paragraph points out Renfroe could have attempted to conduct the depositions around the same time and place as the depositions Renfroe took of the Rigsbys in January 2007 in a separate matter.
It seems to me the Rigsby’s could have justifiably opposed any additional deposition by Renfroe counsel. Instead, the Rigsbys respectfully request that if this Court chooses to allow Renfroe to depose the Rigsbys on September 3, 2008, that it only allow Renfroe to depose the Rigsbys for one hour each, and on the same topics as State Farm.
I suppose we’ll learn the outcome shortly as there’s just a week until the depositions are scheduled to take place. Hopefully, we won’t need bumper stickers and tee-shirts printed with Remember the McIntosh to move this case along.