{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "Case 1:16-cv-00390-LF-SCY Document 236 Filed 07/06/21 Page 8 of 12",
    "date": "July 6, 2021",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "The Federal Rules presumptively limit the number of depositions that each side may conduct to ten. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A) (\"A party must obtain leave of court, which shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2), if ... a proposed deposition would result in more than ten depositions being taken ....\"); accord Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 104 F.Supp.2d 334, 342 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Landry v. St. James Parish Sch. Bd., No. Civ. A 99-1438, 2000 WL 1741886, at *2 (E.D.La. Nov. 22, 2000). The purpose of Rule 30(a)(2)(A) is to \"enable courts to maintain a 'tighter rein' on the extent of discovery and to minimize the potential cost of '[w]ide-ranging discovery' ....\" Whittingham v. Amherst Coll., 163 F.R.D. 170, 171-72 (D.Mass.1995) (citation omitted). Accordingly, \"[t]he mere fact that many individuals may have discoverable information does not necessarily entitle a party to depose each such individual.\" Dixon v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 692 (D.Kan.1996).\n\n\"The factors relevant to determining whether a party should be entitled to more than ten depositions are now set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C) and include whether (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less extensive, (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action, and (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.\" Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) (internal quotations omitted).\n\nRule 26(b)(1) has since been modified to read \"(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).\" The scope of discovery permitted by 26(b)(1) is \"non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.\" Thus, the factors to be considered have simply been moved to a new number with cross reference.\n\n4",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Federal Rules presumptively limit the number of depositions that each side may conduct to ten. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A) (\"A party must obtain leave of court, which shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2), if ... a proposed deposition would result in more than ten depositions being taken ....\"); accord Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 104 F.Supp.2d 334, 342 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Landry v. St. James Parish Sch. Bd., No. Civ. A 99-1438, 2000 WL 1741886, at *2 (E.D.La. Nov. 22, 2000). The purpose of Rule 30(a)(2)(A) is to \"enable courts to maintain a 'tighter rein' on the extent of discovery and to minimize the potential cost of '[w]ide-ranging discovery' ....\" Whittingham v. Amherst Coll., 163 F.R.D. 170, 171-72 (D.Mass.1995) (citation omitted). Accordingly, \"[t]he mere fact that many individuals may have discoverable information does not necessarily entitle a party to depose each such individual.\" Dixon v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 692 (D.Kan.1996).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"The factors relevant to determining whether a party should be entitled to more than ten depositions are now set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C) and include whether (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less extensive, (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action, and (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.\" Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) (internal quotations omitted).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Rule 26(b)(1) has since been modified to read \"(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).\" The scope of discovery permitted by 26(b)(1) is \"non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.\" Thus, the factors to be considered have simply been moved to a new number with cross reference.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.La.",
      "D.Mass.",
      "D.Kan."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 6, 2021",
      "Nov. 22, 2000",
      "Apr. 2, 2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:16-cv-00390-LF-SCY",
      "Document 236",
      "104 F.Supp.2d 334",
      "2000 WL 1741886",
      "163 F.R.D. 170",
      "164 F.R.D. 685",
      "2009 WL 890682"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a page from a legal brief or court document, discussing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding depositions and discovery. The text is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}