Opinion
No. 03 Civ. 10100 (WHP) (RLE).
August 18, 2004
OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 22, 2003, pro se plaintiff Shoulan Chang ("Chang") filed a complaint against defendant Safe Horizons alleging violations of her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. On July 21, 2004, Chang filed an application requesting that she reopen the deposition of Lydia Colon-Flores ("Colon-Flores") on the grounds that the witness's answers were not responsive or pertinent. For the reasons which follow, the request is DENIED.
II. CHANG'S ALLEGATIONS
On August 30, 2000, Chang filed a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights ("Commission") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). See Complaint ("Comp.") at ¶ 8. Chang alleges that Safe Horizons, her former employer, discriminated against her because of her race and national origin. Id. Chang also alleges that on August 4, 2000, Safe Horizons terminated her employment with its multilingual immigrant hotline for protesting the defendant's discriminatory practices. Id.III. DISCUSSION
The decision to grant discovery requests lies within the Court's discretion. Stagl v. Delta Airlines, 52 F.3d 463, 474 (2d Cir. 1995); Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80, 84 (2d Cir. 1990). "Like most discovery disputes, the availability of a second deposition is left to the discretion of the trial court." Bonnie Co. Fashions v. Bankers Trust Co., 945 F. Supp. 693, 732 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (citations omitted). Furthermore, courts permit the reopening of a deposition where the witness was inhibited from providing full information, and where new information comes to light triggering questions the discovering party would not have thought to ask at the first deposition. Keck v. Union Bank of Switz., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10578, *4 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). A court's discretion regarding the use of multiple depositions of the same party is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2), which provides in relevant part:
The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods otherwise permitted under these rules and by any local rule shall be limited by the court if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issue at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. The court may act upon its own initiative after reasonable notice or pursuant to a motion under subdivision (c).
In the instant case, on July 20, 2004, Chang deposed Colon-Flores, administrative director at Safe Horizons. The deposition lasted several hours. Chang now asks the Court to reopen the deposition of Colon-Flores "because the defendant's answers were not responsive and pertinent to my questions." Chang letter, July 21, 2004. Chang also asserts that she is unable to express herself well and as intended during the depositions. Id. The Court has reviewed the audiotape deposition in question, and has determined that Chang had ample time to depose Colon-Flores on a number of issues. In addition, Colon-Flores was responsive to Chang's extensive questions. Therefore, Chang's request to reopen the deposition of the witness is DENIED.