Hertz Corporation v. Accenture LLP
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-03508
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Hertz Corporation v. Accenture LLP, Magistrate Judge Aaron denied without prejudice Accenture’s requests to expand depositions and question undisclosed trial witnesses.
Accenture’s discovery requests were denied without prejudice. Hertz opposed the requests, and the ruling kept the presumptive 10-deposition limit in place while allowing Accenture to seek additional depositions later if it could meet the stated requirements.
What happened
Hertz Corporation sued Accenture LLP for allegedly failing to complete a website and mobile-application project as promised. Accenture later filed two breach-of-contract counterclaims.
Accenture asked to increase the presumptive limit from 10 depositions to 20 and to depose trial witnesses who had not previously been deposed. Hertz opposed both requests.
Magistrate Judge Aaron denied both requests without prejudice. He found that the proposed depositions could be cumulative, but said Accenture could request additional depositions later by showing good cause and proportional need.
The detailed version
- Hertz Corporation v. Accenture LLP · No. 1:19-cv-03508
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 9, 2020
Background
Hertz brought a breach-of-contract action against Accenture concerning a project to develop a website and mobile applications for Hertz’s vehicle-rental brands. The work was performed in phases under a Consulting Services Agreement. Accenture completed Phase 1, but later told Hertz it could not meet the promised December 2017 launch date. After Accenture requested extensions, Hertz hired a new technology-services provider and terminated Accenture. Hertz seeks damages for payments allegedly made for deficient services and deliverables, along with additional project-completion and remediation costs.
Accenture filed an answer and two breach-of-contract counterclaims against Hertz. During fact discovery, Accenture sought permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 to increase its deposition limit from the presumptive 10 depositions per side to 20 depositions. Accenture also asked to depose any trial witnesses who had not been deposed before the witness list was filed. Hertz opposed both requests.
Analysis
The court applied Rules 30 and 26. Those rules generally limit each side to 10 depositions and require discovery to be relevant, proportional to the needs of the case, and not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.
The court reviewed a list of 17 proposed witnesses. Three witnesses had information about Change Request 1, while Hertz represented that five marketing-department witnesses had significantly overlapping information. The court concluded that avoiding cumulative discovery supported denying Accenture’s request to increase the deposition limit. The court noted that, after Accenture reached the 10-deposition limit, it could seek permission for additional depositions by showing good cause, a continuing need for noncumulative discovery, and proportionality. The court also encouraged Accenture to use depositions of organizational representatives under Rule 30(b)(6), which generally count as one deposition for purposes of the limit even if more than one person testifies.
The court denied Accenture’s request to depose previously undeposed trial witnesses as premature. If either side later identifies a trial witness who was not previously disclosed under Rule 26(a)(1), the opposing party may seek permission from Judge Pauley to take a deposition immediately before trial.
Disposition
The court denied without prejudice Accenture’s requests (1) to increase the number of depositions from 10 to 20 and (2) to depose trial witnesses who had not previously been deposed. The opinion was signed by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.