RPM Pizza, LLC v. Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company

Filing 276

RULING granting 250 Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Rule30(b)(6) Deposition of Domino's Pizza. Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company's request for an order compelling Domino's to appear for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 01/23/2014. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RPM PIZZA, LLC, D/B/A
DOMINO’S PIZZA

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 10-684-BAJ-SCR

ARGONAUT GREAT CENTRAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
RULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
TO QUASH RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC
Before the court is a Motion for Protective Order and to Quash
Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Domino’s Pizza filed by Domino’s Pizza,
LLC. Record document number 250. Defendant Argonaut Great Central
Insurance Company filed a response to the motion.1
All of the arguments and exhibits of Domino’s and Argonaut
have been considered.

The motion is resolved as follows.

Domino’s raises four primary reasons in support of its motion
for protective order and to quash the notice of Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition for its deposition set for January 21, 2014: (1) lack of
reasonable notice; (2) undue burden on the Domino’s representative
specifically requested to testify by the defendant; (3) lack of
proper service; and (4) the areas of inquiry to the deposition call
for

production

of

confidential,

and

proprietary

commercial

information that cannot be released to Domino’s other franchisees,
which includes the remaining plaintiff in this suit, RPM Pizza.
1

Record document number 263.

Review of the arguments and exhibits submitted demonstrates
that three of the grounds for the motion are not a convincing basis
to grant the relief sought by Domino’s, however one is.
On January 14, 2013 the district judge granted Argonaut leave
to take two depositions and extended the discovery completion
deadline to January 21, 2014.2

That deadline made giving Domino’s

more than seven days notice impossible.3

Argonaut issued the

deposition notice the day after the ruling.

The best practicable

notice under the circumstances was provided by Argonaut.
The problem with service of the deposition subpoena fee has
been cured.

According to the motion, the deposition subpoena

itself was served on Domino’s attorney who had filed an objection
to a separate subpoena for production of records. Argonaut did not
dispute

that

the

deposition

subpoena

was

served

on

Domino’s

attorney rather than its designated agent for service in Louisiana.
But in the circumstances of this case, that deficiency alone is not
sufficient to quash the subpoena since it could have been readily
cured, and there is no suggestion that Domino’s did not receive

2

Record document number 247. A corporate representative of
Domino’s, per Rule 30(b)(6), was one of the six specific
depositions which Argonaut identified in its Supplemental
Memorandum in Support of Argonaut’s Motion to Extend Discovery
Deadlines & File Supplemental Pretrial Order.
Record document
number 237-1.
3

Rule 30(b)(1) requires that a party “give reasonable written
notice to every other party.”
Rule 45(d)(3)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P.,
requires the court to quash a subpoena that “fails to allow a
reasonable time to comply” or “subjects a person to undue burden.”
2

actual notice of the deposition.
The existence of the protective order in this case undercuts
Domino’s arguments related to the confidentiality and proprietary
information it claims it would be required to divulge given the
scope of the subpoena.4

Specifically, given RPM’s damages claim

there is no way to avoid the disclosure to RPM that may result from
Domino’s providing relevant information to Argonaut, but RPM is
bound by the protective order in this case.

Furthermore, it would

not be reasonable to limit Argonaut’s ability to defend against
RPM’s claims based on Domino’s concern that RPM will obtain
information about its other franchisees.
Given the scope of the documents and expected testimony
covered by Argonaut’s subpoena and deposition notice, an undue
burden is imposed on Domino’s and its corporate representative, Jim
Stansik - the representative specifically requested by Argonaut and
the person most qualified to testify about the documents and the
areas of inquiry.

All the circumstances - including the short

notice,

position

Stansik’s

schedule –

and

his

extensive

meeting/travel

are set forth in the memoranda and do not need to be

repeated here.

It is sufficient to state that given the time

constraints

Domino’s

and

obligation

4

to

prepare

its

corporate

Domino’s did not submit any exhibits/documents to support
its claim that its business dealings with other franchisees in the
Domino’s Pizza System, including franchisees in the Atlanta,
Georgia area are confidential and proprietary.
3

representative

to

testify

about

the

broad

areas

of

inquiry,

Argonaut unwillingness to narrow the areas of inquiry or the time
frame of its inquiry, combined with its unwillingness to limit the
length of the deposition or conduct it by telephone, collectively
imposed an undue burden on Domino’s.

For this reason, Domino’s

request for an order quashing the subpoena and Notice of Rule
30(b)(6) deposition of Domino’s Pizza will be granted.
In

its

opposition

memorandum

Argonaut

sought

compelling Domino’s to give a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
an improper way of requesting such relief.

a

order

This was

But even considering

Argonaut’s request, the relief requested is not warranted.

It

would be improper for the court to issue a blanket order for
Domino’s to give a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition when neither Domino’s
nor the court knows when the deposition will be taken, what scope
of

the

deposition

deposition.

will

be,

and

the

length

of

time

for

the

While the district judge’s Ruling and Order had the

effect of greatly compressing the amount of notice to Domino’s, it
cannot

be

fairly

read

to

have

relieved

Argonaut

of

its

responsibility under Rule 45(d) to “take reasonable steps to avoid
imposing undue burden or expense” on Domino’s.

And the time

allowed by the Ruling and Order to complete discovery has expired.5

5

Argonaut filed a motion to extend the discovery completion
date so as to allow the deposition of Domino’s. Record document
number 269, Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company’s Motion to
Continue the January 21, 2014 Discovery Deadline. This motion is
(continued...)
4

Accordingly, the Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Rule
30(b)(6) Deposition of Domino’s Pizza filed by Domino’s Pizza, LLC
is granted.
Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company’s request for an
order compelling Domino’s to appear for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 23, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

(...continued)
pending before the district judge.
5