Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council
- David Doty
- 0:25-cv-00213
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Michael Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council, Judge Foster denied Fiorito’s request to take fifteen fact depositions instead of six.
Michael Fiorito’s request for additional fact depositions was denied; Metropolitan Council opposed the request.
What happened
Michael Fiorito asked the court to raise his limit from six to fifteen fact depositions in his case against Metropolitan Council.
Fiorito said discovery identified at least six witnesses who might have relevant information. Metropolitan Council opposed the request, arguing that Fiorito had not taken any depositions, had not explained why some witnesses might provide different information, and had said he could not pay for depositions.
Judge Dulce J. Foster denied the motion because Fiorito had not used any of his six allotted depositions and therefore had not shown that more were needed. The court said he may ask again if he approaches the limit and explains the number of additional depositions, their expected testimony, and why their information is relevant and not repetitive.
The detailed version
- Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council · No. 0:25-cv-00213
- David Doty
- Apr. 13, 2026
Background
The pretrial scheduling order limited Michael Fiorito to six fact depositions. Fiorito moved for permission to increase that limit to fifteen. A fact deposition is a witness’s sworn testimony taken during discovery before trial.
Parties’ Positions
Fiorito argued that discovery had identified at least six witnesses who might have relevant information. Metropolitan Council opposed the motion. It argued that Fiorito had not taken any depositions, had not explained why he needed information from witnesses who might provide duplicative testimony, and had stated repeatedly that he could not pay for depositions.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a party seeking to change the deposition limit must make a particularized showing—that is, a specific explanation of why the additional discovery is necessary. Because Fiorito had not taken any of his six permitted depositions, the court found that he had not shown why he needed an increased limit.
Disposition
The court DENIED Fiorito’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Fact Deposition Limit. Judge Dulce J. Foster stated that Fiorito may seek an increase if he approaches or nearly uses his deposition limit. Any renewed motion must state exactly how many additional people he wants to depose, describe their expected testimony, and explain why their information is relevant and not duplicative.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.