The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
T&R PROPERTIES, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action 2:24-cv-3761
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
BERLIN TOWNSHIP, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Take More Than Ten Depositions (Doc. 55) is before the
Court. Subject to the following conditions, the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are granted leave
to take four additional depositions beyond the ten-deposition limit imposed by the Federal Rules;
all additional depositions beyond ten are limited to ninety minutes in duration; and all additional
depositions beyond ten may be conducted via video conference. The Court also GRANTS in part
the parties’ Motion for an Extension of Case Management Deadlines. (Doc. 59).
I. BACKGROUND
This matter concerns Plaintiffs’ challenges to events surrounding Defendant Berlin
Township’s implementation of its “industrial overlay zoning district” (“BIO”). (Doc. 30 at 1
(citing Doc. 4 at ¶ 1)). Plaintiffs initiated this action in the Delaware County Court of Common
Pleas, but on July 25, 2024, Defendants removed the case to federal court. (Doc. 1). During the
pendency of this case, Plaintiffs also pursued a related administrative appeal in state court. (Doc.
4 at 1 n.1; Doc. 17 at 2). On January 8, 2025, the state court issued a decision, and Plaintiffs
continue to appeal that order. (Doc. 17 at 2; Doc. 31 at 1 n.1).
In a previous order, the Court briefly described the allegations here:
According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Berlin Township laid out a “willing and flexible
approach to meet central Ohio’s growing population” through a “comprehensive
land plan,” “zoning overlay districts,” and zoning processes aimed at “expediting
development applications.” (Id.). Enticed by that plan, Plaintiff T&R Properties,
Inc. purchased land in the BIO to develop a mixed-use project. (Id. at ¶ 2).
But roadblocks soon emerged. Defendant Berlin Township “demanded that
[Plaintiff T&R Properties, Inc.] apply for their mixed-used project under two
separate applications.” (Id. at ¶ 5 (cleaned up)). Plaintiffs did so, dividing the
project into multi-family apartments and an industrial warehouse project. (Id. at ¶
4, 5, 7). Even so, Defendant Berlin Township denied the warehouse portion under
its zoning code. (Id. at ¶ 7, 8). And it denied the rental development partially out of
a preference for “for-sale condominiums.” (Id. at ¶ 9 (also discussing density
issues)). These denials, Plaintiffs say, were arbitrary and capricious and show
Defendant Berlin Township’s intentions to discriminate against racial minorities by
restricting the development of high-density housing. (Id. at ¶ 10).
(Doc. 30 at 1–2; see also Doc. 31 (Amended Complaint)).
Recently, the parties provided the Court with an update about their discovery progress.
(Doc. 49). In relevant part, Plaintiffs noted that they anticipated filing a motion to exceed the ten
depositions permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 2–3; see also Doc. 53 at
2–4). About a month later, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion. (Doc. 55). It is now fully briefed.
(Docs. 57, 58).
II. STANDARD
Two rules govern Plaintiff’s Motion. Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
requires discovery be relevant and proportional to the needs of a case, considering importance of
issues, amount in controversy, parties’ relative access to resources, importance of the discovery in
resolution of the issues, and whether the burden or expense of discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A court must limit the extent of discovery if it determines: (i)
the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some
other more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source; or (ii) the party seeking
discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) and (ii).
For its part, Rule 30 states that a party must obtain leave to exceed the ten-deposition limit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i). While the Rule instructs courts to grant leave to the extent consistent
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, courts have wide discretion in choosing whether to grant
additional depositions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). See also Talismanic Props, LLC v. Tipp City,
309 F.Supp.3d 488, 14 (S.D. Ohio 2017). A district court has the discretion to deny leave to take
additional depositions when no good reason has been presented. Talismanic, 309 F.Supp.3d at 14.
(quoting Moore v. Abbot Labs., No. 2:05-CV-1065, 2009 WL 73876, at *1 (S.D. Ohio 2009)).
III. DISCUSSION
As it stands, Plaintiffs have conducted eight depositions. Plaintiffs deposed all members
of the Berlin Township Board of Trustees and the Berlin Township Board of Zoning Appeals.
(Doc. 55 at 3). Now, Plaintiffs seek to depose the members of the Berlin Township Zoning
Commission, as well as Berlin Township’s Fiscal Officer. (Id.; see also Doc. 58 at 2). Plaintiffs
state they plan to use their remaining depositions to depose Jerry Valentine and Angela Brown.
(Doc. 58 at 2 (labeling Valentine and Brown as deponents nine and ten)). Because Plaintiffs are
entitled to ten depositions, the Court need not grant leave for these deponents. Therefore, this
Order addresses the four additional depositions that Plaintiffs have requested beyond the ten-
deposition threshold only, specifically Zoning Commission members Darcy Kapla (11), Jenny
Sloas (12), and Keither Goshia (13), and Fiscal Officer Jeff Jordan (14). (Id.).
Plaintiffs proffer that good cause supports these additional depositions because there are
not sufficient and less burdensome means to acquire the specific information they seek. (Id.).
Defendants respond that Plaintiffs fail to make a particularized showing of good cause for each
extra deposition nor for the depositions that already took place. (Doc. 57 at 5). Plus, they argue
that meeting minutes taken of Berlin Township Board Meetings are sufficient to provide the
information that Plaintiffs seek. (Id.).
Because the ten-deposition limit set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 is intended to
curb abusive discovery practices, it follows that the party wanting more has to show that the
additional depositions are necessary. Talismanic Props, 309 F.Supp. 3d 488, 14. Courts generally
require a “particularized showing of necessity from the party requesting additional depositions for
each additional deposition.” Rayco Mfg., Inc. v. Deutz Corp., No. 5:08CV74, 2009 WL 10869411,
at *1 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (quoting Lewis v. Mt. Morris Twp., 2007 WL 2902890 (E.D. Mich. 2007)).
For a party to satisfy a burden of particularity, they must demonstrate that “good cause” exists for
each additional deponent. Steward v. Roppe Corp., No. 3:18-CV-2905, 2022 WL 6234979, at *3
(N.D. Ohio 2022) (citing Moore, 2009 WL 73876, at *1).
The law affords the Court wide discretion in deciding whether Plaintiffs have shown good
cause for conducting additional depositions. And the Court finds good cause here. Plaintiffs assert
that their claims relate to the “motives, comments, rationale, and basis” for decisions of various
Berlin Township bodies politic members. (Doc. 58 at 3 (describing Plaintiff’s claims for Fair
Housing Act violations and due process violations)). Defendants do not appear to contest the
relevancy of the depositions at bar to Plaintiffs’ claims. (See generally Doc. 57). Yet, Defendants
contend Plaintiffs have been afforded a less burdensome means of discovering this information.
(Id.). However, Plaintiffs have illustrated these other means are insufficient. The Court agrees
the information sought is not readily discoverable through the published meeting minutes of the
Berlin Township Board, or any other presently available source. This is true because each member
of the various bodies politic of Berlin Township―including those who have already been
deposed―brings their individual motives or rationales for each vote, recommendation, or action
that may not be reflected on an official record or transcript. It follows that individualized inquiry
is likely the best, if not the only, discovery method available on this front. In other words, the
proffered deposition information cannot be obtained from a less burdensome source. And the
record reflects Plaintiffs have not previously been afforded ample opportunity to obtain this
information. Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that
good cause exists for the depositions.
Nonetheless, the Court also acknowledges that protections should be afforded, with respect
to the resource intensive nature of depositions. The Court imposes the following conditions on the
forthcoming depositions: (1) Plaintiffs are granted leave to depose the four additional people they
identified in their reply brief (Darcy Kapla (11), Jenny Sloas (12), Keither Goshia (13), and Jeff
Jordan (14)); (2) all additional depositions beyond ten are limited to ninety minutes in duration;
and (3) all additional depositions beyond ten may be conducted via video conference.
Finally, the parties requested an extension to all case deadlines. (Doc. 59). In light of this
Order, and the other points raised in the parties’ Motion, the Court agrees the case schedule should
be adjusted. Plaintiffs request an additional 60 days for all deadlines, and Defendants request 120
days. (Id. at 4). The Court finds splitting the difference appropriate. Therefore, the Court
AMENDS the case schedule as follows:
• Fact discovery due December 30, 2025
• Primary expert reports due January 29, 2026
• Rebuttal expert reports due March 2, 2026
• Expert discovery due March 30, 2026
• Dispositive motions due May 16, 2026
This case is also REFERRED to mediation in May 2026. The Court will not extend these
deadlines further absent extenuating circumstances.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and subject to the following conditions, Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to Take More Than Ten Depositions (Doc. 55) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are granted leave
to take four additional depositions beyond the ten-deposition limit imposed by the Federal Rules;
all additional depositions beyond ten are limited to ninety minutes in duration; and all additional
depositions beyond ten may be conducted via video conference. The Court also GRANTS in part
the parties’ Motion for an Extension of Case Management Deadlines. (Doc. 59).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 26, 2025 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE