A Magistrate Court judge in Utah has denied a motion from the defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case to re-open discovery so they can depose the plaintiff, ruling that the defendants “were not diligent in pursuing” the deposition when they had the chance.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit in late 2023 alleging fraud, violations of the FDCPA, and civil rights violations. A scheduling order set the discovery cutoff for April 30, 2025. Multiple defendants attempted to coordinate the plaintiff’s deposition beginning in March 2025, and the plaintiff offered dates in April, May, and July. But the defendant seeking to reopen discovery did not take the deposition on any of those dates.
- The defendants later changed counsel and participated in status reports indicating that depositions might need to occur after the discovery deadline, yet they never moved to extend the deadline before it expired.
- Even after July, when the plaintiff again offered dates, the defendants did not act. They eventually sought an extension of the dispositive motion deadline in mid-October and later filed the present motion to reopen discovery.
The ruling: Judge Daphne A. Oberg of the District Court for the District of Utah ruled that the defendants failed the most important factor: diligence.
- Judge Oberg emphasized that the defendants “presented no evidence showing they asked to depose [the plaintiff] at any time before filing their motion to extend the dispositive motions deadline on October 17 — nearly six months after fact discovery closed.”
- The judge also noted that the need for the plaintiff’s deposition was “foreseeable,” given that the plaintiff is the central witness in the case. The defendants offered no explanation for why they did not pursue the deposition earlier, despite being given multiple opportunities.
- Reopening discovery would also cause some prejudice, Judge Oberg determined. The plaintiff had already filed a motion for summary judgment based on the existing record, and allowing a deposition now would give the defendants an opportunity to tailor their strategy based on the arguments already revealed.
- While trial was not imminent and the deposition would normally yield relevant testimony, those factors did not outweigh the defendants’ lack of diligence.
