Simmons v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC et al
Filing
49
ORDER granting 46 Defendant's Ex Parte MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Rick Skae. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 12/27/12. (Dembin, Mitchell)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN SIMMONS,
Case No. 11cv2889-WQH (MDD)
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
REGARDING THE
DEPOSITION OF RICK SKAE
vs.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH
BARNEY, LLC,
[ECF NO. 46]
Defendant.
Before the Court is Defendant’s ex parte motion for a protective order
regarding the deposition of Mr. Rick Skae, filed on December 11, 2012. (ECF No.
46). Plaintiff responded in opposition on December 19, 2012. (ECF No. 48). As set
forth below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
Background
For a detailed exposition of the facts, see the Order issued by the Hon. William
Q. Hayes on May 24, 2012, granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion
to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 37). As a consequence of that Order, the only claims
pending before the Court at this time are Plaintiff’s claims for employment
discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and Cal.Govt.Code § 12940(a).
Plaintiff asserts that he was discriminated against by Defendant in his employment
due to his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
-1-
11cv2889-WQH (MDD)
1
The instant dispute stems from a notice of deposition issued by Plaintiff to
2
Defendant for Rick Skae. Defendant has sought protection on the grounds that Mr.
3
Skae is a member of Defendant’s Global Wealth Management Group’s Senior
4
Management Team and, as such, is a “highly placed executive.” All four members of
5
the team were noticed; Defendant agreed to produce the other three but asserts that
6
Mr. Skae has no personal knowledge of any facts supporting the remaining claims.
7
(ECF No. 46-1 at 6). In his declaration, Mr. Skae states that he supervises the
8
Northeast Division of Defendant and that Plaintiff has always served in the southern
9
California region. (ECF No. 46-2). He says that he never had responsibility for that
10
region, never had supervisory authority over Plaintiff and did not review or evaluate
11
Plaintiff’s performance. Id. He claims to have had no role regarding Plaintiff’s
12
compensation nor termination and has no knowledge of Plaintiff’s job performance at
13
Defendant. Id. Mr. Skae admits that he did work with Plaintiff at a former
14
employer. Id.
15
Plaintiff claims that Mr. Skae supervised Plaintiff at the former employer and
16
assisted in recruiting Plaintiff to Defendant. According to Plaintiff, Mr. Skae was
17
present at “talent reviews” during which Plaintiff’s job performance and ranking were
18
discussed. Plaintiff primarily relies upon the fact that Defendant issued a third party
19
subpoena to the former employer for records of Plaintiff’s performance in claiming
20
that Mr. Skae’s deposition testimony may be relevant.
21
Legal Standard
22
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery,
23
authorizing parties to obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is
24
relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, “[f]or good
25
cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter
26
involved in the action.” Id. Relevant information for discovery purposes includes any
27
information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,”
28
and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. There is no requirement
-2-
11cv2889-WQH (MDD)
1
that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the case. Rather,
2
relevance encompasses any matter that “bears on” or could reasonably lead to matter
3
that could bear on, any issue that is or may be presented in the case. Oppenheimer
4
Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have broad discretion
5
to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,
6
751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have broad discretion to limit discovery
7
where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be
8
obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
9
expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits also should be imposed where the
10
burden or expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.
Discussion
11
12
The Apex Doctrine
13
Courts consistently define apex employees as “high-level corporate executives.”
14
See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, 282 F.R.D. 259, 263 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
15
(“the deposition of a high-level executive (a so-called apex deposition),”); DR Sys., Inc.
16
v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2009 WL 2973008 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009) (“an official
17
at the highest level or apex of a corporation”); Bank of the Ozarks v. Capital Mortg.
18
Corp., 2012 WL 2930479 at *1 (E.D. Ark. July 18, 2012) (“The apex doctrine protects
19
high-level corporate officials . . .”).
20
When a party seeks to take the deposition of an official at the highest level or
21
“apex” of a corporation a stricter standard applies to the party seeking discovery, and
22
the court may exercise its authority under the federal rules to limit discovery.
23
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). See, e.g., Mulvey v. Chrysler Corp., 106 F.R.D. 364 (D.C.
24
R.I.1985) (Virtually every court that has addressed deposition notices directed at an
25
official at the highest level or “apex” of corporate management has observed that such
26
discovery creates a tremendous potential for abuse or harassment.). Even when
27
seeking the deposition of an apex official, “it is very unusual ‘for a court to prohibit
28
the taking of a deposition altogether absent extraordinary circumstances.’” Apple,
-3-
11cv2889-WQH (MDD)
1
282 F.R.D. at 263 (quoting WebSideStory, Inc. v. NetRatings, Inc., 2007 WL 1120567
2
at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2007) ). “When a witness has personal knowledge of facts
3
relevant to the lawsuit, even a corporate president or CEO is subject to deposition. A
4
claimed lack of knowledge, by itself it is insufficient to preclude a deposition.” Id.
5
When determining whether to allow an apex deposition, courts often consider:
6
(1) whether or not the high-level deponent has unique first-hand, non-repetitive
7
knowledge of the facts at issue in the case and (2) whether the party seeking the
8
deposition has exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods, such as
9
interrogatories and depositions of lower level employees. See Salter v. Upjohn, 593
10
F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir.1979) (granting protective order for executive where plaintiff
11
had sought to depose the president of the company before deposing lower level
12
executives); Baine v. General Motors Corp., 141 F.R.D. 332 (M.D.Ala. 1991) (granting
13
protective order for Vice President of General Motors where plaintiff had failed first
14
to depose lower level employees).
15
Defendant asserts that Mr. Skae is a high level executive lacking in personal
16
knowledge regarding the discrimination claims before the Court. Plaintiff has
17
presented substantial evidence that Mr. Skae has personal knowledge regarding
18
Plaintiff’s employment with his former employer and regarding the recruitment of
19
Plaintiff to Defendant. Plaintiff, however, has not presented sufficient evidence that
20
Mr. Skae has any relevant, non-cumulative personal knowledge of the circumstances
21
surrounding the alleged discrimination against Plaintiff or of the circumstances
22
surrounding his termination. In his declaration, Plaintiff claims he regularly
23
socialized and discussed business and work issues with Mr. Skae during his
24
employment with Defendant. (ECF No. 46-2). Significantly, however, Plaintiff does
25
not state that he told Mr. Skae that he believed he was the subject of religious
26
discrimination. Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Skae was present at “talent reviews” when
27
his conduct was discussed by Plaintiff’s supervisor but does not suggest how the
28
testimony of Mr. Skae in that regard would be anything but cumulative. Id.
-4-
11cv2889-WQH (MDD)
1
Plaintiff places substantial reliance on the fact that Defendant issued a third
2
party subpoena to Plaintiff’s former employer for records of Plaintiff’s employment.
3
Because counsel for Defendant claimed those records to be relevant to this case in
4
communications with counsel for Plaintiff, Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Skae’s testimony
5
regarding Plaintiff’s former employment also must be relevant. Plaintiff, apparently,
6
chose not to file any legal challenge to that subpoena. The relevance of Plaintiff’s
7
former employment records to the discrimination claims pending in this Court has
8
not been litigated and is not before this Court. The fact that Defendant subpoenaed
9
these records without legal challenge does not establish the general relevance of
10
Plaintiff’s former employment to the claims and defenses remaining in this case.
Conclusion
11
12
13
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for a protective order is
GRANTED.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
DATED: December 27, 2012
17
18
19
Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
11cv2889-WQH (MDD)
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?