CT Charlton and Associates, Incorporated v. Thule, Incorporated et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon. (Miles, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

C.T. CHARLTON & ASSOCIATES,
INC., a Michigan corporation,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-13479

v.

DISTRICT JUDGE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

THULE, INC., a Massachusetts
corporation, and John Does,
unknown individuals,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL A RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION AND FOR SANCTIONS (DKT. NO. 25)
Before the Court is Plaintiff C.T. Charlton and Associates, Inc.’s Motion to
Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Witness(es) to Prepare for Deposition and to Testify and for
Sanctions (Dkt. No. 25). The Court has reviewed this motion, Defendant Thule, Inc.’s
response and Plaintiff’s reply thereto. The Court also heard oral argument on May 10,
2012, and has read the deposition of Mark Thomas Cohen (the CFO for Thule’s Vehicle
solutions North American Business) in its entirety. Having reviewed Cohen’s deposition
transcript, the Court is satisfied that – with the exception of the limited areas set forth
below – Mr. Cohen complied with his obligation to both prepare for and answer
questions under oath on behalf of Thule, Inc. relative to Plaintiff’s Complaint allegations.
Therefore,

-1-

IT IS ORDERED that on or before June 1, 2012, Mr. Cohen on behalf of
Defendant shall prepare for – and respond under oath in writing to Plaintiff – regarding
the following issues raised at his February 2, 2012 deposition:
1.

Identify the companies (listed on Deposition Exhibit 1) that continued to
supply Thule after the asset purchase transaction (involving TracRac).
Dep. p. 12:21-25.

2.

Indicate (providing names, if any) whether anybody at Thule looked at the
Charlton & Associates Sales Representation Agreement with TracRac
before the Asset purchase transaction. Dep. p. 42:1-4.

3.

Indicate (providing names, if any) whether anyone at Thule discussed
commissions that Charlton might be claiming were due. Dep. p. 48: 16-19.

4.

Indicate whether Fred Clark knew the amounts Charlton might be claiming
in commissions due. Dep. p. 55:5-7.

If Mr. Cohen provides any names in response to items number 2 or 3, or
answers “yes” to item 4, then Plaintiff – at its expense – may re-depose Mr. Cohen to
follow-up on these three issues only for not more than one (1) hour.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.
s/Mark A. Randon
MARK A. RANDON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: May 14, 2012

-2-

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the parties of record on this date, May 14,
2012, by electronic and/or first class U.S. mail.

s/Melody R. Miles
Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon
[phone]

-3-