Bindbeutel et al v. Quiktrip Corporation

Filing 40

ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Quiktrip Corporation's Motion to Quash 30(b)(B)(6) Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Defendant Quiktrip Corporation is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. [Doc. 22] Within thirty (30) days of this Order, a nd at a date agreeable to plaintiff, defendant Quiktrip Corporation shall produce a 30(B)(6) representative or representatives, who shall produce documents and testify as to the items detailed in plaintiff's Notice of Deposition. Defendant' s motion to quash is GRANTED to the extent that the items in the Notice of Deposition shall be limited as follows: Item No. 14 Defendant's objection to "[a]ll complaints by persons in the last 5 years where it is alleged that QuikTrips in Missouri lacked adequate ramps" is sustained. Defendant need not provide documents or testimony responsive to Item No. 14.......SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 4/22/2014. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

REBECCA BINDBEUTEL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
QUIKTRIP CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-1612 CAS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon defendant Quiktrip Corporation’s Motion to Quash
30(b)(B)(6) Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Defendant Quiktrip Corporation.

Plaintiff

responded to the motion, and defendant did not file a reply memorandum. The motion was called
and heard on April 22, 2014. Consistent with the Court’s opinion as announced from the bench,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Quiktrip Corporation’s Motion to Quash 30(b)(B)(6)
Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Defendant Quiktrip Corporation is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. [Doc. 22] Within thirty (30) days of this Order, and at a date agreeable to
plaintiff, defendant Quiktrip Corporation shall produce a 30(B)(6) representative or representatives,
who shall produce documents and testify as to the items detailed in plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition.
Defendant’s motion to quash is GRANTED to the extent that the items in the Notice of Deposition
shall be limited as follows:
Item No. 14 – Defendant’s objection to “[a]ll complaints by persons in the last 5
years where it is alleged that QuikTrips in Missouri lacked adequate ramps” is
sustained. Defendant need not provide documents or testimony responsive to Item
No. 14.

Item No. 17 – Defendant’s objection to “[a] list of all QuikTrips that had
non-compliant parking, ramps, and handrails in its Missouri stores under the ADA
that were in operation as of July 15, 2010” is sustained, in part. Defendant need not
provide documents or testimony with respect to parking or ramps. In all other
respects, defendant’s objection is overruled.

Item No. 21 – Defendant’s objection to “[a]ny emails, not privileged, between any
of defendant’s employees that reflect defendant’s ADA non-compliance regarding
its stores” is sustained, in part. Item No. 21 shall be limited to emails within the last
five (5) years regarding ADA non-compliance in stores located in Missouri.

Item No. 24 – Defendant’s objection to “[a]ny written communications, not
privileged, between any of defendant’s employees that reflect defendant’s ADA
non-compliance regarding its stores,” is sustained, in part. Item No. 24 shall be
limited to written communications within the last five (5) years regarding ADA noncompliance in stores located in Missouri.

Item No. 25 – Defendant’s objection to “[a]ny written communications, not
privileged, between any of defendant’s employees and contractors or builders that
reflect defendant’s ADA non-compliance regarding its stores,” is sustained, in part.

2

Item No. 25 shall be limited to written communications within the last five (5) years
regarding ADA non- compliance in stores located in Missouri.

Item No. 36 – Defendant’s objection to “[n]et worth statements for defendant
QuikTrip Corporation at the end of 2012” is sustained. Defendant need not provide
documents or testimony responsive to Item No. 36 at this time.

In all other respects, defendant Quiktrip Corporation’s motion is DENIED.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this

22nd day of April, 2014.

3