Baker et al v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. et al
Filing
374
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that DuPont's request to compel depositions (Dkt. No. 366) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above; ORDERED, that the requests in Dkt. Nos. 357, 371, and 372 are GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 5/26/2023. (khr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________
MICHELE BAKER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
1:16-CV-917
(LEK/DJS)
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE
PLASTICS CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
This Order addresses requests by Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company (“DuPont”) to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics Corp. (“Saint-Gobain”) and to enforce subpoenas served on two
non-party witnesses, Peter Spohn and Damien Nevoret. Dkt. Nos. 357, 360, & 366.
Saint-Gobain opposes the requests. Dkt. Nos. 358 & 370. Mr. Spohn, through counsel,
also objects. Dkt. Nos. 364 & 369. For the reasons set forth below, DuPont’s request
for a 30(b)(6) deposition is denied, but the request to conduct non-party depositions is
granted.
1
A. Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Saint-Gobain
This Court has an obligation to ensure that cases proceed in a manner “to secure
the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 1. Consistent with that obligation, the Court has the authority to limit
discovery when it would be “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” FED. R. CIV. P.
26(b)(2)(C)(i), or when “the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to
obtain the information by discovery in the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii). In
the Court’s view, both of these limitations warrant denial of the request to conduct a
30(b)(6) deposition.
DuPont seeks to question a representative of Saint-Gobain on a number of
distinct topics. Dkt. No. 366 at pp. 5-8. However, the record before the Court amply
demonstrates that the topics as to which DuPont seeks further testimony have been or,
more importantly at this stage of the proceedings, could have been covered during
multiple prior depositions. See Dkt. No. 370 at pp. 4-9; In re Hoosick Falls PFOA
Cases, 1:19-MC-18, Dkt. No. 115 at pp. 5-8. It is not clear why the topics were not
covered in the detail DuPont now seeks and DuPont offers no clear explanation. It
contends that the information sought is critical to address issues presented by prior
District Court rulings in this case regarding notice and the duty to warn. Dkt. No. 366
at p. 2. But as DuPont concedes, the District Court’s rulings were “based . . . on the
Plaintiffs’ allegations.” Id. The nature of those allegations has been long known to the
2
parties and was at the heart of extensive discovery already conducted by all parties. The
proposed deposition would likely involve Saint-Gobain producing witnesses who have
already testified to testify again about certain topics. “[W]hen a party has had ‘ample
time in which to pursue the discovery that it now claims is essential,’ a district court has
broad discretion to deny a request for further discovery.” Rosado v. Maxymillian, 2022
WL 54181, at *2 (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2022) (quoting Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corp. v. Esprit De Corp., 769 F.2d 919, 927 (2d Cir. 1985)). In the Court’s view,
DuPont’s presently stated interest in additional discovery does not provide a basis for
what appears to be a broad reopening of multiple topics that have already been
extensively covered. This is particularly true given that DuPont seeks to do so with the
corporate representative of a party who has resolved all claims against it.
B. Individual Non-Party Depositions
The proposed depositions of Spohn and Nevoret do not present the same concerns
for the Court. As to each, the Court views the scope of the proposed depositions as
much narrower. DuPont has identified specific topics and/or documents about which it
wishes to question these individuals. Dkt. No. 366 at pp. 9-10. Neither has previously
been deposed. The Court recognizes that it is quite likely that some of the ground
DuPont’s counsel may wish to address with these witnesses may have been covered
during other depositions.
It appears equally likely, however, that each could be
questioned about information uniquely available from these witnesses. That neither
3
Spohn nor Nevoret had ever worked in Hoosick Falls nor that it has been a long time
since either has worked at Saint-Gobain, see Dkt. No. 370 at p. 10, bears little
relationship, in the Court’s view, to whether or not they could have proportionally
relevant information about PFOA and the risks associated with it, given the historical
nature of PFOA’s development and use in Hoosick Falls.
To minimize the burden on these deponents, the Court limits the deposition of
each to four hours. See FED. R. CIV. P. 30(d)(1). DuPont may inquire of the witnesses
for up to three hours, with forty-five minutes of questioning available to Plaintiffs’
counsel, and fifteen minutes reserved for the deponent’s counsel should they wish to
clarify any of their client’s testimony. DuPont has experienced counsel. It will be
counsel’s judgment as to how use its limited time to obtain information. Should counsel
choose to use that time on material that was available to DuPont previously, it does so
at its peril because the Court will not, absent extraordinary circumstances, extend the
time for these depositions.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED, that DuPont’s request to compel depositions (Dkt. No. 366) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above; and it is further
ORDERED, that the requests in Dkt. Nos. 357, 371, and 372 are GRANTED;
and it is further
4
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall serve copies of this Decision and
Order on the parties.
Dated: May 26, 2023
Albany, New York
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?