Tealeh v. DeJoy

Background

Flomo Tealeh, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and initially asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After earlier motion practice, the remaining claims against DeJoy concerned alleged disparate treatment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment, to the extent they were supported by activity Tealeh raised in a 2020 administrative complaint with the United States Postal Service Equal Employment Opportunity Office.

A September 2022 scheduling order allowed no more than six fact depositions. It stated that organizational-designee depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) counted as one deposition regardless of the number of witnesses designated. Fact discovery was scheduled to remain open until June 30, 2023. Tealeh stated that he had taken two fact depositions and one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and had noticed three additional fact depositions.

Motion

Tealeh asked to increase the fact-deposition limit from six to nine. He argued that documents produced during discovery contained relevant factual statements by employees and that additional depositions would help him investigate those statements, avoid unfair disadvantage, and reduce delay and inefficiency at trial. In his reply, he identified three additional fact witnesses. He acknowledged that he had not yet used all six available fact depositions but sought permission in advance to avoid later delay.

DeJoy opposed the motion, arguing in part that Tealeh had not exhausted the six depositions already available and had not made a particularized showing that more depositions were necessary.

Court’s analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that a party seeking more depositions than the scheduling order allows must make a particularized showing—meaning a specific explanation—of why the additional discovery is necessary. The court also noted that parties typically must use their existing deposition allotment before requesting more.

The court nevertheless found good cause. It held that Tealeh’s desire to avoid anticipated delay and inefficiency reasonably justified expanding the limit before he used all six depositions. The court also found that his request for nine depositions was below the ten depositions contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i) and that he had adequately shown why additional depositions might be necessary.

Disposition

Judge Dulce J. Foster granted Tealeh’s Motion to Expand Facts Depositions and modified the pretrial scheduling order to allow nine fact depositions. The opinion also clarified that, for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, the requesting party identifies the topics, while the organization chooses the witnesses who testify on its behalf.