Robinson v. De Niro

Background

The defendants asked for seven additional hours to complete the plaintiff’s deposition. The first session lasted six hours and 20 minutes, leaving 40 minutes under the seven-hour limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. The plaintiff opposed the request for more than the two additional hours she had offered, plus the unused 40 minutes.

The defendants said more time was needed because of objections and allegedly evasive answers during the first session, more than 40 hours of audio recordings that they wanted to play and discuss, the number of claims and defenses in the case, and questions they said were needed to support possible summary-judgment or Rule 11 proceedings. They identified 13 areas for additional questioning, including events surrounding the plaintiff’s resignation, communications after the resignation, alleged physical contact and sexually charged comments, the plaintiff’s job responsibilities, her handling of Canal property and expenses, vacation reimbursement, and her use of Netflix.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants had already received enough time and had themselves wasted time by asking about subjects such as hobbies, travel, earlier jobs, school, and other allegedly irrelevant matters.

Legal standard

Rule 30 generally limits a deposition to one day or seven hours. The court must allow additional time when needed for a fair examination or when the deponent or another person or circumstance impedes or delays the examination. A party seeking an extension must show good cause.

Analysis and ruling on the deposition

After reviewing the transcript and the parties’ submissions, the court found that an extension was warranted. It concluded that the plaintiff had been uncooperative and evasive on some relevant, nonprivileged questions, and that her counsel had made unnecessary objections and speaking objections. The court estimated that the plaintiff and her counsel had wasted at least one hour.

The court also found that defense counsel had wasted at least one hour on irrelevant or unnecessarily indirect questions. Even so, the court concluded that the defendants had not yet received a full opportunity to examine the plaintiff fairly. It determined that seven additional hours were not warranted, but that the remaining topics could be covered in five additional hours plus the 40 minutes remaining from the first session.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to continue the plaintiff’s deposition for five additional hours and the additional unused 40 minutes. It directed that the deposition be conducted by February 11, 2022. The court instructed the plaintiff to answer questions directly and succinctly, instructed her counsel not to make speaking objections, and reminded defense counsel to use the time wisely and ask only questions relevant to the claims and defenses.

Request to seal

The defendants, with the plaintiff’s counsel’s consent, also requested that the plaintiff’s unsigned deposition transcript be sealed. They said it contained personal, confidential, financial, and medication-related information. The court explained that discovery materials generally do not have the same public-access status as documents used to decide motions or conduct a trial, and that good cause can support sealing under Rules 5.2 and 26.

The court found good cause to seal portions discussing medical issues involving Mr. De Niro, the plaintiff, or others; Mr. De Niro’s marital issues; the plaintiff’s mental-health treatments; and other sensitive information consistent with the order. It found that other portions concerned routine or publicly available information. The court granted the parties’ motion to seal subject to its approval of the proposed redactions. The parties were ordered to submit a transcript identifying proposed redactions by February 2, 2022. The court cautioned that sealing for this discovery dispute would not necessarily continue if the transcript were later used with dispositive motions or at trial.