Mealing v. Denso Manufacturing Arkansas Inc

Filing 15

ORDER granting in part and denying in part, as set forth herein, 11 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 12/6/2011. (jct)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION

MARK MEALING
V.

PLAINTIFF
NO. 3:11CV00026

DENSO MAUNUFACTURING ARKANSAS, INC.

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Pending are Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with notice of deposition pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6),(docket # 11) and Defendant’s response and objections to Plaintiff’s
Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition,(docket # 14).
On November 2, 2011, Plaintiff provided Defendant with a document outlining proposed
areas of inquiry for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice to be issued on a later date. Thereafter, the
parties conferred regarding the Defendant’s objections to certain areas of inquiry. On November
25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a formal notice of deposition with the Court and simultaneously filed a
motion to compel. Defendant sets forth its objections to the November 25, 2011 notice in its
response.
Defendant objects to each area of inquiry to the extent it solicits attorney-client
communication or attorney work product. To the extent any question asked at the deposition
solicits matters which are privileged, the Defendant is directed to preserve his objection on the
record. The parties may present these issues to the Court for resolution following the completion
of the deposition.
Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s inquiry into matters not related to the claims and issues in
1

this case. Generally, parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, so long
as it is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The
Court finds that Plaintiff’s notice is overly broad as it seeks information relating to gender
discrimination or harassment, issues not alleged in this case and seeks information relating to a
motion for summary judgment which has not been filed in this case. Discovery of matters not
“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” is not within the scope of
Rule 26(b)(1). Accordingly, Defendant’s objection is sustained.
Defendant also objects to the Plaintiff’s notice at paragraphs 4 and 7 as overly broad in
that these paragraphs fail to define a relevant period of time. The Court finds that a time period
of seven (7) years is reasonable. Defendant should produce a witness or witnesses who will be
able to give testimony relating to these areas of inquiry for the past seven (7) years.
Defendant objects to Paragraph 11 of the notice because Defendant does not maintain the
statistics requested. The Court finds the area of inquiry relevant and discoverable, however,
more appropriately addressed in written discovery.
Defendant’s remaining objections are overruled and Defendant’s request for a protective
order is denied. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part as
set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2011.

____________________________________
James M. Moody
United States District Judge

2