Scalph v. Timber Products Trucking, LLC
- Jeffrey White
- 4:24-cv-02614
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Scalph v. Timber Products Trucking, LLC, Judge White granted a protective order blocking Dr. Waldrop’s second deposition because defendants had not sought required court permission.
Scott and Angela Scalph, Dr. Greer Waldrop, and the defendants seeking to take a second deposition of Dr. Waldrop.
What happened
In Scalph v. Timber Products Trucking, LLC, Scott and Angela Scalph asked the court to prevent defendants from taking a second deposition of Dr. Greer Waldrop. They argued that defendants had not obtained the court’s permission, which is required before deposing someone again in the same case.
The court agreed that defendants’ failure to seek permission required granting the request. It also found no good cause for another deposition. The court said defendants could have requested Dr. Waldrop’s recent treatment note before the first deposition and did not object or stop that deposition when the note was produced. The court also said it was too late for defendants to raise alleged problems with the Scalphs’ disclosures.
The court granted the Scalphs’ request for a protective order preventing a second deposition of Dr. Waldrop. Judge Jeffrey White issued the order on July 29, 2025.
The detailed version
- Scalph v. Timber Products Trucking, LLC · No. 4:24-cv-02614
- Jeffrey White
- July 29, 2025
Background
The court considered a discovery letter in which Plaintiffs Scott and Angela Scalph sought a protective order, meaning an order limiting or preventing discovery, to stop Defendants from taking a second deposition of Dr. Greer Waldrop. The first deposition had already occurred. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(ii), a party must obtain leave of court before conducting a repeat deposition of a person who has already been deposed in the case.
Defendants argued that good cause supported continuing Dr. Waldrop’s deposition because Plaintiffs had not adequately disclosed information about her before the first deposition. Defendants pointed to a treatment note that Dr. Waldrop produced during her May 30, 2025 deposition. The note was two weeks old and had not previously been seen by Defendants.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Defendants’ failure to seek leave of court independently required granting the request for relief. The court emphasized that Rule 30 uses mandatory language requiring a party to seek permission before conducting a repeat deposition.
The court also stated that the record did not support a finding of good cause, even if that issue were considered. Nothing in the record showed that Defendants objected to the treatment note when it was produced or suspended the deposition. The court further noted that Defendants had not requested discovery from Dr. Waldrop before her deposition, that the deposition occurred before fact discovery closed, and that Defendants had learned of Dr. Waldrop’s treatment one month earlier. The court concluded that Defendants could have obtained the treatment note or other records in advance.
Defendants also challenged the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ disclosures. Relying on the deadline in Civil Local Rule 37-3, the court said it was too late for Defendants to bring a discovery motion concerning those alleged deficiencies. The court added that, even if it considered the alleged deficiencies, they would not give Defendants a right to conduct discovery that the rules or a court order did not otherwise permit.
Disposition
The court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a protective order preventing a second deposition of Dr. Waldrop. The opinion states that Judge Jeffrey White issued the order on July 29, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.