{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "2018-00290",
    "date": "07/06/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:2018-cv-00290-LFW Document 23509 Filed 07/06/21 Page 4 of 112 and (c) facts demonstrating that the burden and expense of the discovery is justified by the needs of this case. Indeed, she has not established that the testimony is even relevant to the actual issues in this matter. Plaintiff's inability to establish these factors requires denial of the motion. I. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST IS PREMATURE First, the request to exceed the presumptive ten-deposition limit is premature. \"[C]ourts generally will not grant leave to expand the number of depositions until the moving party has exhausted the ten depositions permitted as of right under Rule 30(a)(2)(A) or the number stipulated to by the opposing party.\" Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006). This guideline makes sense because a \"moving party must not only justify those depositions it wishes to take, but also the depositions it has already taken.\" Id. (citing Barrow v. Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., 202 F.R.D. 480, 482 (N.D.Tex. 2001)). This rule is in place because \"a party could indirectly circumvent the cap on depositions by exhausting the maximum allotted number to those that she could not justify under the Rule 26(b)(2) standards, and then seek[ ] leave to exceed the limit in order to take depositions that she could substantiate.\" Id. at 483. Here, Plaintiff seeks a pre-emptive determination that she should be permitted 17 depositions, almost twice the presumptive limit, yet her proposed depositions are not calculated to lead to admissible evidence in this case. By way of example, Plaintiff identifies Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or Sarah Vickers), and Jeffrey Epstein as alleged \"co-conspirators\" with each other. She requests the depositions of each. Plaintiff anticipates each will invoke the Fifth Amendment - in other words, she will not obtain any discoverable information from them. 2 DOJ-OGR-00004205",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:2018-cv-00290-LFW Document 23509 Filed 07/06/21 Page 4 of 112",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "and (c) facts demonstrating that the burden and expense of the discovery is justified by the needs of this case. Indeed, she has not established that the testimony is even relevant to the actual issues in this matter. Plaintiff's inability to establish these factors requires denial of the motion.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST IS PREMATURE",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the request to exceed the presumptive ten-deposition limit is premature. \"[C]ourts generally will not grant leave to expand the number of depositions until the moving party has exhausted the ten depositions permitted as of right under Rule 30(a)(2)(A) or the number stipulated to by the opposing party.\" Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006). This guideline makes sense because a \"moving party must not only justify those depositions it wishes to take, but also the depositions it has already taken.\" Id. (citing Barrow v. Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., 202 F.R.D. 480, 482 (N.D.Tex. 2001)). This rule is in place because \"a party could indirectly circumvent the cap on depositions by exhausting the maximum allotted number to those that she could not justify under the Rule 26(b)(2) standards, and then seek[ ] leave to exceed the limit in order to take depositions that she could substantiate.\" Id. at 483.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, Plaintiff seeks a pre-emptive determination that she should be permitted 17 depositions, almost twice the presumptive limit, yet her proposed depositions are not calculated to lead to admissible evidence in this case. By way of example, Plaintiff identifies Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or Sarah Vickers), and Jeffrey Epstein as alleged \"co-conspirators\" with each other. She requests the depositions of each. Plaintiff anticipates each will invoke the Fifth Amendment - in other words, she will not obtain any discoverable information from them.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004205",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Nadia Marcinkova",
      "Sarah Kellen",
      "Sarah Kensignton",
      "Sarah Vickers",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Gen. Elec. Co.",
      "Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am.",
      "Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "D. Conn.",
      "N.D.Tex."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "May 25, 2006",
      "07/06/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "2018-00290",
      "3:06-CV-232",
      "23509",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004205"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a legal case, with a formal tone and legal language. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}