DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
ANDERSON POLEON, DAVID STEVENS,
5
AKEEM NEWTON, and JEROME ASHE,
5
5
Plaintiffs,
5
1999-CV-0127
v.
5
5
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
5
5
Defendant.
5
__________________________________________5
TO: 
K. Glenda Cameron, Esq.
Sunshine S. Benoit, Esq.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO
SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO A SECOND DEPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendant’s
Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Submit Themselves to a Second Deposition (Docket No.
532).
Defendant moves for the Court to compel Plaintiffs to submit themselves to a second
deposition.  Second depositions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(a)(2)(B), which states, “A party must obtain leave of court, which shall be granted to the
extent consistent with the principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2), . . . if, without the written
Case: 1:99-cv-00127-AET-GWC   Document #: 544   Filed: 06/18/07   Page 1 of 3
Poleon  v. General Motors Corp.
1999-CV-0127
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Submit Themselves to a Second Deposition
Page 2
stipulation of the parties, the person to be examined already has been deposed in the case.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B).  Rule 26(b)(2) provides, in relevant part, that discovery:
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 issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the
proposed discovery in resolving the issues.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).
The Court determines that: (i) the discovery sought is not unreasonably cumulative
or obtainable from some other, more convenient source; (ii) the Defendant has not had
ample opportunity to obtain the information sought; and (iii) the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery does not outweigh its likely benefit.  Therefore, the Court will grant
Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiffs to submit themselves to a second deposition.  At
the same time, the Court will restrict the said depositions to any new areas of inquiry;
Defendant will not be allowed to re-visit any topics covered in the previous depositions.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED:
1.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Submit Themselves to a Second
Deposition (Docket No. 532) is GRANTED.
Case: 1:99-cv-00127-AET-GWC   Document #: 544   Filed: 06/18/07   Page 2 of 3
Poleon  v. General Motors Corp.
1999-CV-0127
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Submit Themselves to a Second Deposition
Page 3
2.
The scope of said depositions shall be limited to matters that have developed
since Plaintiffs’ last depositions, such as their current health condition and
employment status; whether they have been involved in any subsequent
accidents; and the status of their mental anguish, pain and suffering, and loss
of enjoyment of life.  Any questioning or attempts to obtain information that
correlates to, is duplicative of, or otherwise parallels the testimony given in
the previous depositions is not permitted.
3.
Said depositions shall be completed on or before July 31, 2007.
ENTER:
Dated: June 18, 2007
                                 /s/                                  
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:99-cv-00127-AET-GWC   Document #: 544   Filed: 06/18/07   Page 3 of 3