Taylor et al v. City and County of Honolulu et al

Filing 240

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S APRIL 17, 2024 DISCOVERY ORDER (ECF NO. 230) re 230 - Signed by SENIOR JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 5/13/2024. (jni)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
TAMARA TAYLOR, Individually and )
on behalf of her minor child, )
N.B.; N.B.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU;
)
HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF
)
EDUCATION; TERRI RUNGE;
)
CHRISTINE NEVES; COREY PEREZ; )
WARREN FORD; HPD DEFENDANTS 1- )
10; DOE-HI DEFENDANTS 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

CIV. NO. 22-00013 HG-KJM

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
APRIL 17, 2024 DISCOVERY ORDER (ECF NO. 230)
On April 17, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued ORDER ON
LOCAL RULE 37.1 DISCOVERY DISPUTE (ECF No. 228).

The Order

addressed the scope of deposition testimony for the 30(b)(6)
witness designated by the Defendant Hawaii State Department of
Education.

(Id.)

On April 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an OBJECTION and an
ERRATA to the Magistrate Judge’s Order.

(ECF Nos. 230, 231).

On May 8, 2024, Defendant Hawaii State Department of
Education filed its Response.

(ECF No. 237).

STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appeal from a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-

1

dispositive matter may be brought pursuant to District of Hawaii
Local Rule 74.1.
A party may object to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive
order within fourteen (14) days after being served.

Local Rule

74.1(a).
A magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter, or
any portion of the order, may be reversed or modified by the
district court only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Review under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly
deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.

Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr.

Laborers Pension Tr., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
Order regarding the scope of the topics for examination
designated in Plaintiffs’ Amended Notice of Rule 30(b)(6)
Deposition of Defendant Hawaii State Department of Education
served on February 12, 2024.

(ECF No. 230).

Plaintiffs’ Objection concerns the Magistrate Judge’s April
17, 2024 Order concerning Topics 3, 4, and 5 of their 30(b)(6)
Deposition Notice.

2

A.

Plaintiffs’ Objection To Topic 3

A Rule 30(b)(6) notice may only ask about topics that are
proportional to the needs of the case and the notice must
describe the topics for examination with a reasonable degree of
particularity.

Adamson v. Pierce Cnty., 2023 WL 7280742, *3

(W.D. Wash. Nov. 3, 2023).

In reviewing a challenge to a

30(b)(6) notice, courts consider the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the parties’ relative access to relevant
information, the parties’ resources, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)).
In Topic 3 of their Notice, Plaintiffs seek to question the
Defendant Hawaii State Department of Education’s 30(b)(6) witness
about “any data or information provided by HI-DOE to U.S. Office
for Civil Rights as part of Civil Rights Data Collection surveys
for school years 2013-2014 through 2019-2020.”

(Magistrate

Judge’s April 17, 2024 Order at p. 5, ECF No. 228).
The Magistrate Judge ruled that Topic 3 need not be
addressed by the 30(b)(6) witness because Topic 3 was
“irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate
to the needs of this case.”

(Id. at p. 6).

A review of the scope of Plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit
demonstrates that Topic 3 is largely irrelevant and
disproportionate to the needs of the case.

3

Plaintiffs’ claims

against the Defendant Hawaii Department of Education are as
follows:
(1)

Racial Discrimination against Plaintiffs pursuant to
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Count 4);

(2)

Disability Discrimination in violation of Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act (Count 5); and

(3)

Negligence and NIED (Count 6).

(Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 148).
The Magistrate Judge explained there is no reason to ask the
Defendant Hawaii State Department of Education’s 30(b)(6) witness
about data provided to the U.S. Office for Civil Rights because
that information is readily available to Plaintiffs from publicly
available sources.

(Magistrate Judge’s April 17, 2024 Order at

pp. 5-6, ECF No. 228).
available to them.

Plaintiffs acknowledged that the data was

(Id.)

The Defendant Hawaii State Department

of Education affirmed that it “already provided to Plaintiffs the
entire data set referenced [in Topic 3] and agreed to name a
deponent who could speak to the process for collecting and
providing such data.”

(Response at p. 5, ECF No. 237).

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge’s
ruling is clearly erroneous.

The Court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned order.

Plaintiffs have not

provided any basis why questioning the 30(b)(6) deponent is
either necessary or relevant when it already has the information
and the State has agreed to provide a deponent who could speak on
the matter.

See Adamov v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP, 2017 WL
4

6558133, *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2017) (finding a discovery
request unduly burdensome when the information was available from
other sources); In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User
Profile Lit., 2021 WL 10282213, *14 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2021)
(denying plaintiffs’ request for discovery from specifically
designated personnel when the material is available from other
sources).
Plaintiffs instead rely on the claims they have asserted
against the Defendant City and County of Honolulu as a basis to
question the Defendant State’s 30(b)(6) witness about the overly
broad and largely irrelevant topic.

Plaintiffs’ reliance on

their claims against the Defendant City and County of Honolulu
for their request against the Department of Education is
misplaced.

Rule 30(b)(6) notices may not be used to burden a

responding party with the production and preparation of a witness
on every facet of the litigation.

Wieland v. Bd. of Regents of

Nev. Sys. of Higher Ed., 2021 WL 4443683, *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 28,
2021).

It is simply impractical to expect a Rule 30(b)(6)

witness to know the intimate details of everything in which his
entity is involved.

Id. at *3.

It is clear that Topic 3 is overly broad and burdensome as
to the Defendant Hawaii State Department of Education’s 30(b)(6)
deponent.
Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling as to
Topic 3 is OVERRULED.

5

B.

Plaintiffs’ Objection To Topics 4 and 5

Plaintiffs seek to question the Defendant Hawaii State
Department of Education’s 30(b)(6) witness in Topics 4 and 5, as
follows:
Topic 4: Any efforts by HI-DOE and/or Honowai Elementary
School to comply with the requirements of Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act between 2015 and
2020;
Topic 5:

Any efforts by HI-DOE and/or Honowai Elementary
School to comply with requirements of Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 between 2015 and
2020.

(Magistrate Judge’s April 17, 2024 Order at p. 6, ECF No. 228).
The Magistrate Judge ruled that Topics 4 and 5 were not
tailored to the present case.

Topics 4 and 5 were found to be

largely irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of this
case.

(Id. at p. 7).

The Magistrate Judge explained that Topics

4 and 5 sought information outside the scope of the case and
unrelated to the narrow claims Plaintiffs brought against the
Defendant Hawaii State Department of Education.

(Id.)

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s ruling.
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge’s
ruling is clearly erroneous.
Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendant Hawaii State
Department of Education are limited.

Plaintiffs cannot seek to

question the Defendant Hawaii State Department of Education’s
30(b)(6) witness about matters that are unrelated to their

6

particular claims and alleged injuries.
action lawsuit.

This is not a class

Plaintiffs do not have free reign to interrogate

a 30(b)(6) witness about irrelevant and overbroad material.
Plaintiffs cannot utilize their claims against Defendant
City and County of Honolulu in order to try to expand the scope
of discovery as to Defendant Hawaii State Department of
Education.

Plaintiffs do not have a Section 1983 Monell claim

against the Defendant Hawaii State Department of Education.
Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the Defendant Hawaii State Department
of Education is much narrower than their claims against the City
and County of Honolulu.

There is no basis for Plaintiffs to

depose the Defendant Hawaii State Department of Education
regarding civil rights claims unrelated to Plaintiffs.
Courts regularly preclude plaintiffs from deposing 30(b)(6)
witnesses about other cases unless directly relevant to the
current proceeding.

See Simkins by Simkins v. New York Life Ins.

Co., 2023 WL 6541460, *4 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 6, 2023).

Plaintiffs

cannot use the 30(b)(6) deposition as a fishing expedition.

See

Rivera v. Nibco, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling as to
Topics 4 and 5 is OVERRULED.

7

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s April 17,
2024 Order (ECF No. 230) is OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 13, 2024, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Tamara Taylor, Individually and on behalf of her minor child,
N.B.; N.B. v. City and County of Honolulu; Hawaii State
Department of Education; Terri Runge; Christine Neves; Corey
Perez; Warren Ford; HPD Defendants 1-10; DOE-HI Defendants 1-10,
Civ. No. 22-00013 HG-KJM; ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS
TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S APRIL 17, 2024 DISCOVERY ORDER (ECF NO.
230)
8