Lorenzi v. State of CT Judicial Branch et al

Filing 95

ORDER denying 83 the defendant Judicial Branch's Motion for Protective Order. See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 12/17/10. (Constantine, A.)

Lorenzi v. State of CT Judicial Branch et al

Doc. 95

Case 3:08-cv-00580-AWT Document 95

Filed 12/17/10 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT LINA LORENZI, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL : BRANCH, KAREN BERRIS and : SHERRY ANTONACCI, : : Defendants. :

CASE NO.

3:08cv580(AWT)

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The plaintiff, Lina Lorenzi, brings this Title VII employment discrimination action against the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, Karen Berris and Sherry Antonacci. She alleges that the

defendants discriminated against her on the basis of race and national origin and retaliated against her for her complaints of discrimination. The plaintiff served a Rule 30(b)(6) notice of

deposition on the defendant Judicial Branch that listed twenty-one topics. The defendant objected on the grounds of, inter alia,

breadth, burden and relevance.

It also maintains that plaintiff

has already obtained much of the evidence she seeks by way of interrogatories and depositions of fact witnesses. Pending before

the court is the defendant's motion for protective order seeking to quash or limit the plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice (Doc. #83.) "Rule 30(b)(6) allows an organization to designate an

individual to 'testify on its behalf.'" Dongguk University v. Yale

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:08-cv-00580-AWT Document 95

Filed 12/17/10 Page 2 of 5

University, --- F.R.D. ----, 2010 WL 3270290, at *3 (D. Conn. 2010). "The testimony provided by a corporate representative at a

30(b)(6) deposition binds the corporation. . . . A party should not be prevented from questioning a live corporate witness in a

deposition setting just because the topics proposed are similar to those contained in documents provided or interrogatory questions answered. . . . When information has already been provided in other forms, a witness may still be useful to testify as to the

interpretation of papers, and 'any underlying factual qualifiers of those documents' (i.e. information which the defendant knows but is not apparent on the face of the documents)." omitted). Id. (citations

"A party may also have an interest in getting the

corporation's testimony on an issue, rather than the testimony of an individual. In such a case, courts have allowed 30(b)(6)

depositions in order to obtain testimony binding on the corporation even though that testimony was likely to essentially duplicate information deposition." which Id. had already been stated in an individual

During oral argument, plaintiff's counsel clarified the scope of the information requested. In many cases, the plaintiff seeks

a corporate designee to explain documents the defendant produced. She also wants to obtain testimony to bind the Judicial Branch on certain issues. burdensome. The information sought is relevant and not unduly

The court overrules the defendant's objections and

2

Case 3:08-cv-00580-AWT Document 95

Filed 12/17/10 Page 3 of 5

denies its motion.

The defendant Branch shall designate a witness

to testify on its behalf on the following: 1. Any training given to Judicial Branch managers at Berris's paygrade and above between 1/1/03 and 12/31/07 on how to address discrimination complaints, including any procedures for handling complaints and whether the defendants received such training. 2. The codes, entries and abbreviations that appear on the

list the defendant produced regarding the items in topic 2 as well as an explanation of how the list was generated and maintained. 3 - 5. Identification of any documents responsive to topics The plaintiff

3, 4 and 5 and an explanation of the documents.

shall not inquire as to the particulars of individual employees. 6. For the dates 1/1/03 to 12/31/07, the names of all those

employed with the defendant Branch as Program Manager II, their dates of hire, and an indication of whether those employees had a written job description. For employees who had a written job

description, the written job description shall be provided. 7. For the dates 1/1/03 to 12/31/07, the race of employees

who directly reported to Karen Berris, Sherry Antonucci and Nancy Kierstead topic 7. 8 - 9. The identification of any documents responsive to and an explanation of any documents responsive to

topics 8 and 9 and an explanation of those documents. 10. Withdrawn at the request of the plaintiff.

3

Case 3:08-cv-00580-AWT Document 95

Filed 12/17/10 Page 4 of 5

11.

Any equal opportunity or affirmative action plan in

effect during the plaintiff's employment as a Program Manager II, its requirements, its implementation and any training on

implementation of the plan. 12 - 13. The defendant's corrective discipline policies, its

supervisor's guides to performance appraisal and their application during the period when plaintiff was employed as a Program Manager II. 14 - 15. 16 - 17. Withdrawn at the request of the plaintiff. The defendant Branch's (1) decisions to appoint the

plaintiff as a Program Manager II, extend her working test period and terminate her employment and (2) the defendant's evaluation of the plaintiff's job performance as a Program Manager II. The

parties agreed to review depositions already taken to determine whether the depositions or any portion thereof may serve as the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in response to these topics. 18, 20 - 21. whether the The supervision of the plaintiff, including of the plaintiff comported with the

supervision

defendant Branch's policies and procedures and any evaluation by the defendant Branch of the quality of supervision provided by the individual defendants. 19. Any investigations the defendant conducted in response to complaints made by the plaintiff while she was employed as a Program Manager II.

4

Case 3:08-cv-00580-AWT Document 95

Filed 12/17/10 Page 5 of 5

SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 17th day of December, 2010. __________/s/________________ Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge

5