Noble v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 146

ORDER resolving discovery dispute as to the location of the new Rule 30(B)(6) deposition. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/8/2017. (Rooney, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 Case No. 1:14-cv-01963-DAD-EPG BROOKE NOBLE, Plaintiff, ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY DISPUTE AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE NEW RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION vs. 14 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 A. Background 18 A Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant Wells Fargo occurred on January 20, 2017 in 19 San Francisco, California. Following that deposition, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and for 20 sanctions requesting that a new Rule 30(b)(6) deposition be compelled and that sanctions enter 21 as a result of conduct impeding the January 20 deposition. (ECF No. 129) 22 On February 27, 2017, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Plaintiff’s motion 23 to compel and for sanctions (ECF No. 129). (ECF No. 138.) Specifically, the Court ordered an 24 additional seven-hour Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Wells Fargo. (Id.) Additionally, the Court 25 set forth a procedure for agreeing on the scope of that deposition, with the Court having input 26 into any disputes in advance of the deposition. (Id.) The Court also denied Plaintiff’s request 27 for sanctions. (Id.) 28 On March 3, 2017, the parties, as directed, jointly filed a list of deposition topics with a 1 1 statement as to whether or not the topic is accepted or disputed. (ECF No. 140.) On March 6, 2 2017, the Court held a discovery dispute conference wherein certain disputed topics were 3 resolved on the record. (ECF Nos. 141-42.) 4 This order addresses the discovery dispute concerning the location of the new Rule 5 30(b)(6) deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the new deposition should take place in the 6 county where her office is located, Orange County, California. Wells Fargo maintains that the 7 new deposition should occur again in San Francisco, the principal place of business for Wells 8 Fargo. Both sides have filed briefs setting forth their legal positions. (ECF Nos. 142-43.) 9 10 B. Legal Standards Generally, “[a] party may unilaterally choose the place for deposing an opposing party, 11 subject to the granting of a protective order by the Court pursuant to Rule 26(c)(2), 12 Fed.R.Civ.P., designating a different place.” Cadent Ltd. v. 3M Unitek Corp., 232 F.R.D. 625, 13 628 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Turner v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 119 F.R.D. 381, 382 14 (M.D.N.C.1988) (citing 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2112 at 15 403 (1970))). 16 “A district court has wide discretion to establish the time and place of depositions.” 17 Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994), as amended (July 25, 1994) (citing 18 In re Standard Metals Corp., 817 F.2d 625, 628 (10th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 488 U.S. 881, 19 109 S.Ct. 201, 102 L.Ed.2d 171 (1988)). 20 According to other courts reaching the issue—none of which are binding on this court, 21 but which nevertheless provide guidance for the Court--a Rule 30 deposition of a corporate 22 party deponent should ordinarily be taken at its principal place of business. Cadent, 232 F.R.D. 23 at 628 (citing Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2112 at 24 84–85 (1994 rev.)). However, “[c]orporate defendants are frequently deposed in places other 25 than the location of the principal place of business, especially in the forum [where the action is 26 pending], for the convenience of all parties and in the general interests of judicial economy.” 27 Id. (collecting cases). 28 In addition to the convenience of the parties and the interests in judicial economy, 2 1 courts have considered the following factors when analyzing whether a corporate deposition 2 should be set in a location other than its principal place of business: 3 4 5 6 1) Location of counsel in the forum district; 2) Number of corporate representatives to be deposed; 3) Likelihood of significant discovery disputes arising which would necessitate resolution by the forum court; 4) Whether the persons sought to be deposed often engage in travel for business purposes; 5) The equities with regard to the nature of the claim and the parties' relationship. 7 Stonebreaker v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 820 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1098–99 (S.D. Cal. 2011) 8 (citing Cadent, 232 F.R.D. at 629). 9 Rule 30 does not state where depositions under that rule should take place, apart from 10 requiring that the notice specify the location of the deposition. Rule 30(a)(1) states in relevant 11 part that “The deponent’s attendance may be compelled by subpoena under Rule 45.” Fed. R. 12 Civ. P. 30(a)(1). Rule 45 includes a provision addressing “Place of Compliance” for a 13 deposition, among other proceedings, and states that “A subpoena may command a person to 14 attend a . . . deposition only as follows . . . within the state where the person resides, is 15 employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person . . . is a party or a party’s 16 officer . . . .” 17 The parties dispute the applicability of Rule 45, especially in light of defects in 18 Plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoena such as the lack of witness fees. The Court has trouble 19 reconciling the plain language of Rule 45 with the practice that corporate entities are ordinarily 20 deposed at their principal place of business, and does not believe the cases cited from the 21 parties put that issue to rest. Nevertheless, the Court takes comfort in the Advisory Committee 22 notes to the 2013 Amendment to Rule 45, which explains in any event that “the courts retain 23 their authority to control the place of party depositions . . . .” 24 C. The Parties’ Positions Concerning Location 25 Plaintiff argues that the relative hardships of the parties favor ordering that the new 26 deposition should occur in Orange County. First, Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that scheduling the 27 deposition in San Francisco would be burdensome due to “fog concerns” requiring Plaintiff’s 28 counsel to expend additional hotel expenses. She argues that such concerns are non-existent in 3 1 Orange County. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that the problems at the January 20 deposition 2 were the result of Defendant’s conduct, which necessitated the scheduling of the second 3 deposition. Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to weigh the relative financial burdens to each 4 party and suggests that Wells Fargo has more financial means to travel to Orange County for 5 the deposition. 6 Wells Fargo argues that there are no unusual circumstances to support departing from 7 the general presumption that a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition should occur at its principal place of 8 business. Wells Fargo will designate two witnesses to testify on its behalf: 1) Brian Kreitzer 9 (employed in Pleasanton, California); and 2) a to-be-determined witness from its Customer 10 Care & Recovery Group (CCRG) (all potential witnesses employed in Iowa). Defense 11 counsel’s office is located in San Francisco. Thus, the tasks of preparing the witnesses in the 12 days prior to the deposition would be completed “most efficiently” in San Francisco, according 13 to Wells Fargo. It is further argued that the relative travel costs of would significantly higher 14 for Wells Fargo than Plaintiff because the witnesses would need to travel to Orange County, 15 where none of them are located. 16 D. Analysis 17 Because both proposed locations of the new deposition are outside of the forum District, 18 some of the factors identified in Stonebreaker and Cadent are not applicable, such as location 19 of counsel in the forum district and likelihood of significant discovery disputes arising which 20 would necessitate resolution by the forum court. Similarly, very little weight was applied to 21 whether the persons sought to be deposed often engage in travel for business purposes and the 22 number of corporate representatives to be deposed. 23 However, the factors of convenience of the parties and judicial economy weigh slightly 24 in favor setting the new deposition in San Francisco, where at least one witness resides and 25 where defense counsel can more easily prepare the witnesses. The Court is also mindful of the 26 burden of expense on Plaintiff’s counsel, especially in light of the shortfall in the preparation of 27 the prior 30(b)(6) witness, which has been discussed extensively among the parties and the 28 court. 4 1 After weighing all facts, the Court finds that the continuation Rule 30(b)(6) deposition 2 will take place in San Francisco. However, because the necessity of the new deposition is at 3 least partially a result of Wells Fargo’s conduct in the previous deposition, and because this 4 location imposes an unequal burden on Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court will fully shift the travel 5 expense for Plaintiff’s counsel to Wells Fargo pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil 6 Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(B); See also, e.g., Cadent, 232 F.R.D. at 630 (partially 7 shifting costs of deposing corporate party after setting deposition in location that would save 8 the other party considerable expense). 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 8, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?