AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v FFIC Risk Management Services, Inc.

Filing 60

RULING denying 59 Motion to Compel 30(b)(6) Deposition of Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/18/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

AMEC CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT,
INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-718-JJB-SCR
FFIC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
D/B/A AND FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE
COMPANY
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
Before the court is the Motion to Compel 30(b)(6) Deposition
of Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company.

Record document number 59.

Plaintiff seeks an order to “compel [Fireman’s Fund Insurance
Company] FFIC to give dates for the [Rule] 30(b)(6) corporate
deposition of FFIC to AMEC within the next sixty (60) days.”
Rule 30, Fed.R.Civ.P., does not require FFIC to provide
convenient deposition dates to the plaintiff.

Rule 30(a) only

requires the plaintiff to give the defendant “reasonable written
notice.”

If the defendant believes there is good cause to do so,

the defendant may move for a protective order, under Rule 26(c), as
to the timing of the deposition or scope of the notice, including
production of any documents requested pursuant to Rule 30(b)(2).1
Otherwise, the defendant is obligated to designate one or more
persons to appear and testify on its behalf at the deposition and

1

Rule 26(c) requires the party seeking protective order to
show good cause for issuing the order.

to produce documents if a production request is made.2
Nothing in the motion or supporting memorandum indicates that
FFIC

failed

deposition.

to

appear
Although

for
the

a

properly

plaintiff

noticed
served

a

Rule

30(b)(6)

notice

for

a

deposition to take place on August 6, 2015,3 the notice was for the
purpose of giving the defendant an opportunity to determine the
correct person or persons to appear on its behalf and working out
any disagreements with the scope of the deposition - effectively a
draft notice.

And while there were subsequent discussions among

counsel regarding the scope of the deposition,4 another notice was
not issued.

In these circumstances, there is no basis to compel

the defendant to do anything.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s the Motion to Compel 30(b)(6)
Deposition of Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 18, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

A party may not use Rule 30(b)(2) to shorten the time
another party would have under Rule 34 to produce documents.
3

Record document number 59-3, Exhibit A.

4

Record document number 59-4, Exhibit B; and record document
number 59-5, Exhibit C.
2