Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Michael Fiorito,
Plaintiff,
v.
Metropolitan Council,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-213 (DSD/DJF)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Fiorito’s Motion for Leave to Exceed
Fact Deposition Limit (ECF No. 151) (“Motion”). The Pretrial Scheduling Order limits Mr. Fiorito
to six fact depositions. (ECF No. 175 at 2.) The Motion asks the Court to increase the limit to
fifteen. When a party seeks leave to alter the number of depositions he may take, he “must make a
particularized showing of why the discovery is necessary.” Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk
Servs., Inc. of Minn., 187 F.R.D. 578, 586 (D. Minn. 1999) (citing Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 271
(8th Cir. 1996)). 	Mr. Fiorito states he needs more than six fact depositions because, through
discovery, he has identified at least six witnesses who might have relevant information. (ECF No.
152 at 1-3.) 	Defendant Metropolitan Council opposes the Motion on the grounds that: (1.) Mr.
Fiorito has failed to take a single deposition to date; (2.) he has failed to explain why he needs
information from witnesses who would provide duplicative information; and (3.) his request is futile
because he has repeatedly stated that he lacks the ability to pay for any depositions. (ECF No. 168.)
The Court DENIES the Motion. 	Since Mr. Fiorito has not taken any of his six allotted
depositions, he has failed to show why he needs an increased deposition limit. See Archer Daniels
Midland Co., 187 F.R.D. at 587 (denying motion to increase number of depositions in part because
moving party had failed to take any). Until Mr. Fiorito exhausts or nearly exhausts his quota, he
CASE 0:25-cv-00213-MJD-DJF Doc. 171 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 2

cannot show that he needs more than what has already been allotted. If he does approach the limit,
he may seek leave to increase it, but his motion must state exactly how many more individuals he
wishes to depose, describe their expected testimony, and explain why those individuals have
information that is both relevant and non-duplicative.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 13, 2026 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-00213-MJD-DJF Doc. 171 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 2