Durkee v. Jett et al

Filing 85

ORDER denying 79 Motion to Quash; granting 78 Motion for Extension of Time and Pltfs shall have through 11/18/2011 to conduct the two depositions at issue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 10/28/11. (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:08cv429
MARGIE GAIL DURKEE, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
CARROLL JETT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
________________________________________ )
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Quash [# 79] and Consent Motion
for Extension of Time [# 78]. Defendants C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. and
C.H. Robinson Company (collectively, “Defendants”) move to quash the
deposition of Chad Lindbloom and the 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendants. On
October, 27, 2011, the Court held a hearing on the motions. At the conclusion of
the hearing, and after the benefit of oral argument, the Court DENIED the Motion
to Quash [# 79] and GRANTED the Motion for Extension of Time [# 78].

The

Court now supplements is oral ruling with this written opinion.
I.

Analysis

Generally speaking, parties are entitled to discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
-1-

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.
The information regarding the communications device mounted on the
dashboard of the tractor trailer that was involved in the collision with Plaintiff
Margie Durkee’s vehicle sought by Plaintiffs in the two depositions at issue is
relevant to their claims in this case. For example, if the deponents knew of any
known or potential dangers from the use and operation of the device, such
information could be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. The fact that the Court
dismissed the claim asserted against Geologic Solutions, Inc. as the manufacturer
of the communications device does not render all information related to these
devices irrelevant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may question deponents about these
devices, including whether or not deponents were aware of any potential danger
from the operation of a vehicle while this device was in use.
Moreover, Defendants are not entitled to a protective order limiting the
scope of the deposition and prohibiting questions regarding knowledge or
information obtained from confidential sources outside the scope of Lindbloom’s
employment with Defendants. Although the information Lindbloom gained while
serving on the board of Xata Corporation may or may not be imputed to
Defendants, this is an evidentiary question for the District Court. Plaintiffs should
be allowed an opportunity to depose Lindbloom and determine what, if anything,

-2-

he knew regarding these communications devices. If Defendants believe that this
information may not be imputed to Defendants, they may file the appropriate
motion in limine prior to trial. Plaintiffs, however, shall have the opportunity to
question Lindbloom as to the scope of his personal knowledge, irrespective of
where or how he obtained his knowledge. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the
Motion to Quash [# 79]. The Court, however, will enter an appropriate protective
order limiting the disclosure of confidential information of Xata Corporation that
Lindbloom may have gained while serving on the board.
II.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the Motion to Quash [# 79] and GRANTS the Motion
for Extension of Time [# 78]. Plaintiffs shall have through November 18, 2011, to
conduct the two depositions at issue. The parties shall submit a joint protective
order to the Court regarding the treatment of confidential information of Xata
Corporation. Finally, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiffs that the Court will not allow
any questions regarding any pending applications for patents of Xata Corporation,
as such information is not relevant to this dispute.

-3-

Signed: October 28, 2011

-4-