Clark et al v. River Metals Recycling, LLC, et al

Filing 232

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND FINDING MOOT IN PART 226 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Sierra International Machinery, LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 5/2/2018. (nmf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RICHARD A. CLARK and JENNIFER
CLARK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RIVER METALS RECYCLING, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-447-JPG-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Sierra International Machinery, LLC’s
Motion for Protective Order as to Location of Depositions, Topics of Inquiry 1, 2, 15, 19, 22(d)
and 22(e) and Request for Production of Documents 16, 17, 23, 29, 31, and 34 (Doc. 226). On
April 30, 2018, the undersigned denied Sierra’s motion to the extent it sought a protective order
concerning the location of depositions for its 30(b)(6) corporate representative and employee
Antonio Torres (Doc. 231). In that Order, the undersigned took the remainder of Sierra’s motion
under advisement. The Court now sets forth its rulings as follows.
1. 30(b)(6) Topic #1
Sierra’s motion for a protective order on 30(b)(6) Topic #1 is DENIED. Defendant Sierra
shall produce a corporate representative who can testify concerning Topic #1. The Court finds
that Mr. Torres was not previously deposed as a 30(b)(6) corporate representative and there is no
documentation indicating that a corporate representative was previously required to be prepared to
testify as to such topic or provided testimony concerning this topic.

Page 1 of 3

2. 30(b)(6) Topic #2
Sierra’s motion for a protective order on 30(b)(6) Topic #2 is GRANTED. The Court
finds Plaintiffs’ topic request overbroad, not relevant to the claims in this lawsuit, and not
proportional to the needs of the case.
3. 30(b)(6) Topic #15
Sierra’s motion for a protective order on 30(b)(6) Topic #15 is GRANTED. The Court
finds Plaintiffs’ topic request overbroad, not relevant to the claims in this lawsuit, and not
proportional to the needs of the case.
4. 30(b)(6) Topic #19
Sierra’s motion for a protective order on 30(b)(6) Topic #19 is GRANTED. The Court
agrees with Sierra that this topic request seeks testimony beyond the bounds of Rule 30(b)(6)
insofar as the information sought is not clearly “known or reasonably available” to Sierra.
5. 30(b)(6) Topics #22(d) and #22(e)
Sierra’s motion for a protective order on 30(b)(6) Topics #22(d) and (e) is GRANTED.
The Court agrees with Sierra that these topic requests seek testimony beyond the bounds of Rule
30(b)(6) insofar as the information sought is not clearly “known or reasonably available” to Sierra.
The Court is also not convinced that such testimony is relevant or proportional to the needs of this
case.
6. 30(b)(2) and Rule 34 Requests for Production of Documents at the Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition
In response to Sierra’s motion for protective order, Plaintiffs indicate that the production
requests have been satisfied aside from the request for Pererya’s emails and affidavit drafts (#31).
Sierra provided a privilege log concerning the same and Plaintiffs ask the Court to examine the
Page 2 of 3

documents in camera. Plaintiffs are interested to see if Pererya, in his draft affidavit, indicated
that Sierra and/or Atoka were the originator of the “mobile” Recycling Balers. Sierra’s motion
for a protective order is GRANTED with respect to Request 31 and FOUND AS MOOT with
respect to any other document requests. The documents Plaintiffs seek in Request 31 are
protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine and, therefore, are outside
the bounds of Rule 26(b).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Sierra’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 226) is
GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and FOUND MOOT IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 2, 2018
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3