Walters v. Target Corp.

Filing 111

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 85 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute presenting Defendant's motion for a protective order regarding the noticed deposition of its in-house counsel, Kristin Watnemo. As provided herei n, the Court will allow Plaintiff to depose Ms. Watnemo for no more than three hours limited exclusively to questions regarding the renaming of the Target Check Card to the Target Debit Card. Ms. Watnemos testimony also is limited to factual, non-privileged information. Ms. Watnemo may be instructed not to answer any questions outside of this scope. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/2/18. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JAMES WALTERS, on behalf of
himself and those similarly
situated,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

TARGET CORP.,

16

Case No.: 16-cv-1678-L-MDD
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
[ECF NO. 85]

Defendant.

17
18

Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties for determination of a

19

discovery dispute filed on August 29, 2018. (ECF No. 85). The dispute

20

presents a motion for protective order by Defendant regarding Plaintiff’s

21

request to depose Defendant’s in-house counsel, Kristin Watnemo. This

22

dispute arises out of an earlier dispute regarding, in part, the adequacy of the

23

witnesses designated by Defendant for deposition under Fed. R. Civ. P.

24

30(b)(6). (See ECF No. 79). During one of the depositions, the witness

25

acknowledged that everything she knew about Defendant changing the name

26

of the “Target Check Card” to “Target Debit Card” came from Ms. Watnemo,

27

one of the few employees remaining from that period of time involved in that
1
16-cv-1678-L-MDD

1
2

matter.
Deposing opposing counsel, although not unlawful, is discouraged. See

3

Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., No. 14-cv-1158-BAS-JLB, 2015 WL 8492501 *1

4

(S.D. Ca. Dec. 10, 2015). Most courts, including ours, refer to the three-part

5

test articulated in Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327

6

(8th Cir. 1986), to determine the appropriateness of such a deposition.

7

Shelton, and its progeny, involve depositions of in-house litigation

8

counsel. It is not clear whether Ms. Watnemo has that role at Defendant.

9

Regardless, the Court finds the guidance provided by Shelton persuasive and

10

will apply it generally here. A party seeking the deposition of opposing

11

counsel must show: (1) There are no other means to obtain the information;

12

(2) The information is relevant and non-privileged; and, (3) The information

13

is crucial to the preparation of the case. See Shelton, 805 F.2d at 1327.

14

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed his burden. There are other

15

means to obtain the information – Plaintiff obtained it from Defendant’s

16

designee; that the relevance of the information is questionable because

17

Plaintiff’s case challenges the marketing of the debit card, not its predecessor

18

card; and, the information is not crucial.

19

Defendant makes a good point but it is clear from the deposition of the

20

designee that Ms. Watnemo is uniquely suited to provide this information.

21

Accordingly, the Court will allow Plaintiff to depose Ms. Watnemo for no

22

more than three hours limited exclusively to questions regarding the

23

renaming of the Target Check Card to the Target Debit Card. Ms.

24

Watnemo’s testimony also is limited to factual, non-privileged information.

25

Ms. Watnemo may be instructed not to answer any questions outside of this

26

scope.

27
2
16-cv-1678-L-MDD

CONCLUSION

1
2

As presented in this Joint Motion, Defendant’s motion for a protective

3

order regarding the deposition of Ms. Watnemo is GRANTED IN PART

4

AND DENIED IN PART.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 2, 2018

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
16-cv-1678-L-MDD