Ingila v. Dish Network Corporation

Filing 53

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Re: Plaintiffs Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), as set forth in the Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/11/2014.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-00809-MSK-MJW
FIFI MENO INGILA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING AND PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF
DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(B)(6)
(DOCKET NO. 50)
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Re:
Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (docket no. 50). The
court has reviewed the subject motion (docket no. 50) and the response (docket no. 52).
In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the court’s file and has considered
applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court now being fully
informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds:
1.

That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties
to this lawsuit;

2.

That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado;

2
3.

That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to
be heard;

4.

That Defendant seeks a protective order from this court preventing
Plaintiff from questioning the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent as to Topics
listed in Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) Notice attached to the subject
motion (docket no. 50). See Schedule A Subject of Deposition
[Topics] (docket no. 50-1);

5.

That this case involves a cause of action for alleged racial
discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See docket no. 11 at
3-4. In essence, Plaintiff, who is African-American, was dismissed
from her employment as a customer service agent at Defendant in
July 2011;

6.

That the decision to issue a protective order rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court. Wang v. Hsu, 919 F.2d 130, 130 (10th
Cir. 1990). Such protection is warranted, upon a showing of good
cause, to “protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(c). A party seeking a protective order under Rule 26(c)
cannot sustain the burden of demonstrating good cause merely by
relying upon speculation or conclusory statements. Tolbert–Smith
v.. Bodman, 253 F.R.D. 2, 4 (D.D.C. 2008). The movant must
show specific facts demonstrating that the challenged discovery will
result in a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking

3
protection. Id.; see also Exum v. United States Olympic Comm.,
209 F.R.D. 201, 206 (D. Colo. 2002);
7.

That Defendant has outlined, in particularity, objections to each of
the Topics;

8.

That as to Topic #1, I find that Topic #1 is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and not stated with reasonable particularity and
therefore Defendant is not required to respond to Topic #1;

9.

That as to Topic #2, I find that Topic #2 is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and not stated with reasonable particularity and
therefore Defendant is not required to respond to Topic #2;

10.

That as to Topic #3, I find that Defendant’s objections that the area
of inquiry is compound and containing multiple subparts, overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, not stated with reasonable
particularity, and requesting information protected from disclosure
by the attorney-client privilege and work product are overruled.
However, if during the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition a question is asked
of the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent that Defendant believes in “good
faith” will infringe upon the attorney-client privilege or work product,
then Defendant may make such objection on the record before the
court reporter, and the deponent will not be required to answer
such question at that time. However, Defendant may be required to
answer such question at a later date after further review by this
court;

4
11.

That as to Topic #4, I find that Topic #4 is overly broad, vague and
not stated with reasonable particularity and therefore Defendant is
not required to respond to Topic #4;

12.

That as to Topic #5, I find Defendant’s objections that the area of
inquiry is compound and containing multiple subparts, overly broad,
unduly burdensome, vague, not stated with reasonable particularity,
and requesting information protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege and work product are overruled. However, if
during the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition a question is asked of the Rule
30(b)(6) deponent that Defendant believes in “good faith” will
infringe upon the attorney-client privilege or work product, then
Defendant may make such objection on the record before the court
reporter, and the deponent will not be required to answer such
question at that time. However, Defendant may be required to
answer such question at a later date after further review by this
court;

13.

That as to Topic #6, I find that Topic #6 is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and not stated with reasonable particularity and
therefore Defendant is not required to respond to Topic #6;

14.

That as to Topic #7, I find Defendant’s objections to the area of
inquiry as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence and not stated with reasonable particularity are overruled;

5
15.

That as to Topic #8, I find that Topic #8 is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and not reasonably calculated to led to the discovery
of admissible evidence and therefore Defendant is not required to
respond to Topic #8;

16.

That as to Topics #9 and #10, I find that Topics #9 and #10 are
both overly broad, unduly burdensome and not stated with
reasonable particularity and therefore Defendant is not required to
respond to Topics #9 and #10;

17.

That as to Topic #11, I find that Defendant’s objections that this
area is inquiry is vague, not stated with reasonable particularity,
overly broad, compound and containing multiple subparts are
overruled;

18.

That as to Topic #12, I find that Defendant’s objections that this
area of inquiry is compound, containing multiple subparts, overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague, not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not stated with
reasonable particularity are overruled;

19.

That as to Topic #13, I find that there are no issues concerning ESI
in this case and therefore such inquiry as outlined in Topic #13 is
irrelevant and therefore Defendant is not required to respond to
Topic #13;

20.

That as to Topic #14, I find Defendant’s objections that this area of
inquiry is compound and containing multiple subparts, overly broad,

6
unduly burdensome, vague, not stated with reasonable particularity,
and requesting information protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege and work product are overruled. However, if
during the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition a question is asked of the Rule
30(b)(6) deponent that Defendant believes in “good faith” will
infringe upon the attorney-client privilege or work product, then
Defendant may make such objection on the record before the court
reporter, and the deponent will not be required to answer such
question at that time. However, Defendant may be required to
answer such question at a later date after further review by this
court;
21.

That as to Topic #15, I find the requested information in Topic #15
is irrelevant therefore Defendant is not required to respond to Topic
#15. Plaintiff’s Title VII and ADA claims that she exhausted through
the EEOC have all been dismissed from the operative complaint
(docket no. 11) because they were untimely. Therefore Defendant’s
representations at the EEOC are not relevant to the one claim at
issue in this action;

22.

That as to Topic #16, I find that Defendant’s objections as to this
area of inquiry is vague and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence are overruled;

23.

That as to Topic #17, I find that Defendant’s objections as to this
area of inquiry that the requested information may be protected by

7
the attorney-client privilege and work product is a valid basis to
object to such inquiry depending upon how the question is phrased.
Accordingly, I will allow Plaintiff to seek such information as outlined
in Topic #17. However, if during the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition a
question is asked of the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent that Defendant
believes in “good faith” will infringe upon the attorney-client privilege
or work product, then Defendant may make such objection on the
record before the court reporter, and the deponent will not be
required to answer such question at that time. However, Defendant
may be required to answer such question at a later date after
further review by this court; and
24.

That the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a request for
production of documents to be served with a deposition notice.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(2). I find that Defendant’s argument that
Plaintiff’s document request as outlined in Schedule B (docket no.
50-2) is an attempt “to circumvent the rules of discovery” and is
“improper, untimely, and facially overly board and burdensome.”
docket no. 50 at 12 is overruled. However, production of such
documents are limited in scope as outlined below in the ORDER.

8
ORDER
WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this
court ORDERS:
1.

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Re: Plaintiff’s Notice of
Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (docket no. 50) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.

That the subject motion (docket no. 50) is GRANTED,
finding Defendant has shown good cause, as to Topics 1, 2,
4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 15, and therefore Plaintiff may not
inquiry into these topics during the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition;

b.

That the subject motion (docket no. 5) is DENIED as to
Topics 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17. However, if during the
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition a question is asked of the Rule
30(b)(6) deponent that Defendant believes in “good faith” will
infringe upon the attorney-client privilege or work product,
then Defendant may make such objection on the record
before the court reporter, and the deponent will not be
required to answer such question at that time. However,
Defendant may be required to answer such question at a
later date after further review by this court;

2.

That Defendant produce at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition those
documents are outlined in the Schedule B (docket no. 50-2) as to
Topics 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17 only; and

9
3.

That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this
motion.

Done this 11th day of April 2014.
BY THE COURT

s/Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE