Hankinson et al v. R.T.G. Furniture Corp

Filing 104

ORDER granting 88 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to Designate a Representative for Deposition on Corporate Structure. Please see Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer on 7/28/2016. (pb00)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-81139-CIV-COHN/SELTZER

BENJAMIN HANKINSON, JAMES GUERRA,
JEANETTE GANDOLFO, LISA PALMER,
DONALD ANDERSON, CATHERINE LONG,
and LISA PRIHODA, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated,

CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs,
vs.
R.T.G. FURNITURE CORP.,
d/b/a ROOMS TO GO, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO DESIGNATE A
REPRESENTATIVE FOR DEPOSITION ON CORPORATE STRUCTURE

THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon [DE 88] Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Defendants to Designate a Representative for Deposition on Corporate Structure. This
is a class action lawsuit against R.T.G. Furniture Corporation d/b/a Rooms to Go
(hereinafter “RTG”), and several related entities. The Court has considered and ruled upon
this issue before, in a Paperless Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel answers to
corporate structure interrogatories and granting Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order
for a corporate representative deposition on the topic of Defendants’ corporate structure.
[DE 82].
At the time of the Court’s earlier Order, the case only involved persons who
purchased fabric protection packages in Florida Rooms to Go stores; no affiliated entities
were named as defendants. However, Plaintiffs had sought leave to file a Second

Amended Complaint adding as plaintiffs persons who purchased fabric protection
packages in other states and adding as defendants other affiliates of RTG. In its May 2,
2016 Order, the Court noted that Plaintiffs would be permitted to revisit the issue of
corporate structure discovery in the event the District Court permitted a Second Amended
Complaint to be filed. [DE 82]. A Second Amended Complaint has now been filed naming
additional entities as defendants [DE 86] and, as such, the Defendants’ corporate structure
is relevant to the issues and defenses in this case.
After the Second Amended Complaint was filed, RTG did provide an answer to the
corporate structure interrogatory. However, Plaintiffs had previously served a 30(b)(6)
Notice containing the following area of inquiry: “The corporate structure of R.T.G. Furniture
Corp., as well as the corporate structure of its affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries.” [DE 671].1 Plaintiffs move to compel RTG to provide a corporate representative to testify on the
matter listed.
RTG objects to a 30(b)(6) deposition, arguing that information about the various
Defendants’ corporate structures has already been provided by interrogatory answer. RTG
also contends that it would be overly burdensome to require it to prepare its corporate
representative to provide testimony about the corporate structures of other Defendants,
even though those Defendants and RTG are owned by common shareholders.
The Court finds that a 30(b)(6) deposition on the topic requested is not duplicative
or overly broad or burdensome, and it is relevant to the issues and defenses in this case.
The Court does note that Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law [DE 88-1] seems to expand the
1

Plaintiffs noticed other areas of inquiry in its 30(b)(6) Notice, but RTG only
objects to inquiry about the corporate structure of RTG, its affiliates, parents and
subsidiaries. [DE 93].
2

topics of inquiry beyond the scope of inquiry contained in their Notice of 30(b)(6)
Depositions. [DE 67-1]. A corporate defendant is only bound to provide testimony on
matters that are listed in the 30(b)(6) notice and that are “known or reasonably available”
to the corporation. King v. Pratt & Whitney, 161 F.R.D. 475, 476 (S.D. Fla. 1995).
However, Rule 30(b)(6) does not limit questioning to those matters included in the notice;
if matters outside the notice are raised, the witness is obligated to respond as though the
deposition were being taken under the general discovery rules. “However, if the deponent
does not know the answer to questions outside the scope of the matters described in the
notice, then that is the examining party’s problem.”

Id. The corporation cannot be

sanctioned if its corporate representative is not prepared to testify to matters not described
in the notice. Id.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants to
Designate Representative for Corporate Structure Deposition be and the same is
GRANTED. The parties will schedule the 30(b)(6) deposition at a mutually agreeable time
and place.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 28th day of July,
2016.

copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

3