1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 12 KISANA CARROLL, an individual; and Case No. 2:23-cv-00194 DAD-SCR 13 T.R., a minor, by GAL Tonya Lieda Gippson, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 14 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RE-OPEN Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF KISANA CARROLL’S 15 DEPOSITION vs. 16 CITY OF STOCKTON, a municipal 17 corporation; CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, individually and in his official capacity as 18 an officer for the Stockton Police Department; NICHOLAS FOGAL, 19 individually and in his official capacity as an officer for the Stockton Police 20 Department; MATTHEW GARLICK, individually and in his official capacity as 21 an officer for the Stockton Police Department; THOMAS GILES, 22 individually and in his official capacity as an officer for the Stockton Police 23 Department; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, individually, jointly, and severally,, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27

28 1 Defendants CITY OF STOCKTON, CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, NICHOLAS FOGAL, 2 MATTHEW GARLICK and THOMAS GILES (“Defendants”) Motion to Re-Open Plaintiff 3 Kisana Carroll’s Deposition, came before this Court for hearing on May 1, 2025. Good cause 4 having been shown and after full consideration of the moving papers, supporting documents, the 5 opposing papers, and after full consideration of all oral arguments made, if any, this Court 6 GRANTS IN PART the Defendants’ Motion. The Court hereby allows the Defendants to re-open 7 Plaintiff Kisana Carroll’s deposition for the limited time not to exceed two (2) hours and to question 8 her on her claims and damages in light of the newly produced medical records, bills, damages in 9 the instant case in light of damages claimed in her recently-filed lawsuit (Case No. 2:25-cv-00719 10 CKD), and the impact of her autoimmune condition on her claimed damages in the instant lawsuit, 11 among related issues. 12 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1) states: “Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by 14 the court, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours. The court must allow additional time consistent 15 with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or 16 any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.” 17 A party must obtain leave of the court if “the deponent has already been deposed in the 18 case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii). Whether to permit a second deposition lies in the court's 19 discretion. Dixon v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 690 (D. Kan. 1996); Bookhamer v. 20 Sunbeam Prods., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151010 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2012) (“Whether to re- 21 open a deposition lies within the court's discretion.”). 22 Without a showing of need or good reason, courts generally will not require a deponent’s 23 reopened deposition. Dixon, 164 F.R.D. at 690. Reopened depositions are disfavored, except in 24 certain limited circumstances, such as where there is new evidence or new theories are added to the 25 complaint. See Graebner v. James River Corp., 130 F.R.D. 440, 441 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Botell v. 26 United States, Case No. 2:11-cv-1545 GEB GGH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12075, 2013 WL 360410, 27 at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2013) (collecting cases); Cohan v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 28 1 | 2014 US. Dist. LEXIS 118925, *5 (D. Nev. Aug. 26, 2014) (finding good cause for an additional 2 | three hours of plaintiff’s deposition due to recent document production). 3 Il. DISCUSSION 4 The Court agrees that good cause exists to reopen Plaintiffs deposition based on the 5 | medical information disclosed after Plaintiffs initial deposition and in order to distinguish between 6 | damages claimed in the instant lawsuit and damages claimed in Plaintiffs recently-filed lawsuit 7 || (Case No. 2:25-cv-00719 CKD). Moreover, since Plaintiff's original deposition consisted of only 8 | 3.7 hours, Defendants have not exceeded the per-deposition time requirement. As such, the Court 9 | determines there is good cause to briefly re-open Plaintiff's deposition. 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion to Re-Open Plaintiff Kisana 11 | Carroll’s deposition is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants may depose Ms. Carroll for up to two 12 || additional hours.' The reopened deposition shall be limited to subjects concerning the new medical 13 | information disclosed by Ms. Carroll after her original deposition, damages in the instant case in 14 | light of damages claimed in her recently-filed lawsuit (Case No. 2:25-cv-00719 CKD), and the 15 | wmpact of her autoimmune condition on her claimed damages in the instant lawsuit. Defendants 16 || may not use this reopened deposition to question Ms. Carroll on the merits of her recently-filed 17 || lawsuit. 18 IT ISSO ORDERED 19 | DATED: May 5, 2025 20 Kmdn 21 SEAN C. RIORDAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ! The undersigned recognizes that the parties have stipulated to a modification of the scheduling order that would allow fact discovery to remain open until May 23, 2025.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFF 3