In the sexual harassment case, why would the depositions be considered unreasonably cumulative and duplicative?

The determination that the depositions are considered unreasonably cumulative and duplicative arises from the nature and volume of information they provide. In legal contexts, depositions are intended to gather testimony from witnesses, and if numerous depositions are taken that essentially cover the same facts or provide repetitive testimony, they do not advance the case's understanding or development.

The legal standards often limit depositions to avoid overburdening the proceedings with excessive redundancy that does not offer new insights or necessary clarifications. When depositions are too numerous and contain substantial repetitions of information already provided, they can clutter the record without contributing additional value. This is why the choice indicating that the depositions were too numerous and repetitive correctly identifies the issue at hand.

In contrast, the other options do not address the specific problem of redundancy. For instance, the lack of relevant information or involvement of irrelevant parties may inhibit the usefulness of a deposition, but they don't necessarily indicate duplication. Similarly, filing depositions late pertains to timing issues rather than the content unnecessarily overlapping with what is already known or presented.