Reynaldo v. Sudzina

Background

The defendants filed a letter application seeking court intervention in three discovery disputes. Discovery is the process through which parties obtain information and evidence from one another before trial. The court stated that no pre-motion conference was necessary and ruled that the application was granted in part and denied in part.

Deposition conduct and sanctions

The defendants sought sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2), which allows a court to impose a sanction when someone impedes, delays, or frustrates a fair deposition. They argued that plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly made improper “speaking objections,” interrupted defense counsel’s questions, debated the questions, and made leading objections during Kevin Sudzina’s deposition.

The court agreed that plaintiff’s counsel made several improper speaking objections. But it also found that defense counsel compounded the delay by engaging in extended discussions about whether the objections were proper. The court therefore stated that no sanctions would be assessed at this time.

For future depositions in the action, the court directed that objections must be made after the questioning lawyer finishes the question and before the witness answers. The objections must be concise, nonargumentative, and nonsuggestive. The court gave “Objection, leading” as an example and explained that counsel should not add argumentative comments such as that the questioner was putting words in the witness’s mouth.

Inspection of plaintiff’s vehicle

The defendants sought an inspection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a). Their experts wanted to examine the “black box,” or computer system, in plaintiff’s 2019 Toyota RAV4. The defendants said the inspection could provide information about the vehicle’s movements and speed at the time of the alleged accident and was important because liability and causation were disputed. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the vehicle had already been repaired and that an inspection would not provide useful information.

The court ordered plaintiff to produce the Toyota RAV4 for inspection by the defendants’ expert, subject to three conditions: the inspection must be limited to the black box; it must occur at a time and place that is minimally inconvenient for plaintiff; and the defendants must reimburse plaintiff for the cost of a comparable rental vehicle during the inspection.

Police report from prior accident

The defendants sought a police report concerning a prior motor-vehicle accident. The letter described uncertainty about whether that accident occurred on March 30, 2018, or March 30, 2019, and stated that an insurance-claims representative said only plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney could obtain the report. The defendants argued that the report might show injuries or complaints of injuries at the scene and could be relevant to injuries plaintiff alleged from the accident in this case.

The court ruled that plaintiff did not need to obtain the police report for the purpose of producing it to defendants. Plaintiff was nevertheless required to reasonably cooperate with defendants’ efforts to obtain it, including by signing any necessary authorization or release prepared by defendants.