Ribeiro et al v. Baby Trend, Inc.

Filing 467

ORDER that Defendants' Motion to Quash Plaintiffs' Notices of Deposition under Rule 30(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for Entry of a Protective Order (Filing No. 433 ), is denied as moot. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
FRANCO RIBEIRO and DEANNA
RIBEIRO, as individuals and as next
friends and biological parents of
Lucas Ribeiro, an infant,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BABY TREND, INC., a corporation,
MARK SEDLACK, MILLENIUM
DEVELOPMENT CORP., INDIANA
MILLS & MANUFACTURING INC.,
LERADO GROUP CO., LTD.,
LERADO GROUP
(HOLDING)
COMPANY,
LTD.,
LERADO
(ZHONG SHAN) INDUSTRIAL CO.,
LTD., LERADO CHINA LIMITED,
LERADO
H.K.
LIMITED,
HOLMBERGS SAFETY SYSTEM
HOLDING AB, GNOSJOGRUPPEN
AB, HOLMBERGS CHILDSAFETY
AB, GNOTEC REFTELE AB, Maxi
MILIAAN
B.V.,
and
DOREL
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV204
ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion to quash Plaintiffs’ notices of Rule
30(b)(6) depositions or for entry of protective order (Filing No. 433) filed by Defendants
Baby Trend, Inc. (“Baby Trend”), Mark Sedlack, and Millenium Development Corp.
(“Millenium”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs filed deposition notices on May
23, 2016, scheduling Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of Millenium and Baby Trend for June 1
and 2, 2016. (Filing No. 430 and Filing No. 431). Defendants filed the instant motion on
May 25, 2016, requesting that the court quash the deposition notices because Plaintiffs: (1)
1

failed to provide reasonable notice required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1); (2) the noticed
topics lack the specificity required by Rule 30(b)(6); and (3) the noticed topics seek
disclosure of privileged information and information outside the scope of Rule 26(b). In
the alternative, Defendants request the court enter a protective order prior to the
Defendants’ depositions taking place to prevent or limit Plaintiffs’ inquiry into matters to
which Defendants objected. (Filing No. 433 at pp. 1-2). Defendants did not request a
stay of the depositions or expedited briefing on their motion. While the instant motion
was pending, the depositions of corporate representatives from Millenium and Baby Trend
took place as scheduled on June 1 and June 2, 2016. (Filing No. 441-1 at pp. 3-4).
Because the depositions have already taken place, the issues raised and relief
requested in Defendants’ motion are now moot. The court recognizes Defendants’ efforts
to comply with this court’s directive to schedule depositions in a manner to best expedite
the discovery process. Due to this court’s prior order (Filing No. 421) directing Plaintiffs
to schedule their depositions of Defendants first, Defendants were in the unenviable
position of proceeding with the scheduled depositions, despite their objections, in order to
continue progression of the case. However, now that the depositions have taken place,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c) governs the conduct of examination by deposition.
During a deposition, “[i]f counsel for a deponent believes that a question is inappropriate,
he or she has two choices: object to the question and allow the witness to answer, thus
preserving the objection, or instruct the witness not to answer.” Van Stelton v. Van
Stelton, No. C11-4045-MWB, 2013 WL 5574566, at *15 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 9, 2013).
Instructing a witness not to answer is permitted “to preserve a privilege, to enforce a
limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30(c)(2). To the extent that Defendants objected on the record during the depositions,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) provides that the testimony is taken subject to any objection. The
court has not been provided with the transcripts of the depositions and thus cannot address
the propriety of any objections made during the depositions. The court notes Defendants’
2

objections raised in this motion and considers them preserved in the event they become
relevant in subsequent discovery motions. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Notices of
Deposition under Rule 30(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for Entry of a Protective Order
(Filing No. 433), is denied as moot.

DATED: July 27, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

3