Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Southern Haulers, LLC
ORDER denying 63 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 7/20/2012. (srr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN HAULERS, LLC,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00564-N
This action is before the Court on a motion (doc. 63) filed by the plaintiff, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), to quash the deposition of its
investigator, Rita Sterling, which was noticed by the defendant, Southern Haulers, LLC
(“Southern Haulers”), and for a protective order. Upon consideration of the motion,
Southern Haulers’ response in opposition thereto (doc. 68), the EEOC’s reply (doc.69)
and all other pertinent portions of the record, it is ORDERED that the EEOC’s motion is
The purpose stated by Southern Haulers for conducting the deposition of EEOC
investigator Rita Sterling, namely “to question Ms. Sterling regarding the steps she took
in conducting the investigation, the documents produced by EEOC as part of its
investigative file, inconsistencies in the documents contained in EEOC’s investigative
file, and individuals identified through the course of EEOC’s investigation” (doc. 68 at 7;
doc. 68-2 at 2), does not implicate EEOC’s deliberative process. See Little v. Auburn
University, 2010 WL 582083, *2 (M.D. Ala. 2010)(EEOC’s motion to quash denied
because questions posed by a defendant to clarify factual information contained in the
EEOC’s investigative file “would not be covered under the deliberative process
privilege” and because “[t]he EEOC is free to assert proper privilege objections where
appropriate, in the manner contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2) during the
deposition.”), citing Turner v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Inc., 2009 WL 651766, *1
(E.D. La. Mar. 11, 2009), quoting Blanks v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2006 WL 1892512,
*1 (S.D. Miss. July 10, 2006). See also Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v.
Corrections Corp. of Am., 2007 WL 4403528 at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 13, 2007)(“Plaintiff
EEOC is not exempt from a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.”); Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 2007
WL 2688565, *2–3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2007)(Overruled “EEOC's objections to the
Magistrate Judge's order denying EEOC's motion for a protective order [‘and granting
Defendant leave to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the EEOC’]”); Equal Employment
Opportunity Comm'n v. Albertson's, LLC, 2007 WL 1299194, *2 (D. Colo. May 1,
2007)(“The disclosure of this information [who was interviewed and what the deponent
did to refresh his recollection of the facts in the case] does not reveal the agency's trial
strategy or its analysis of the case.”).
DONE this 20th day of July, 2012.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?