Sutherland v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

Filing 16

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Discovery; denying as moot 11 Motion for Discovery; denying as moot 15 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 12/5/16. (tob)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION

FREDERICK SUTHERLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
OF CANADA,
Defendant.

:
:
: CIVIL ACTION
:
: NO.: 3:16-CV-00182-FDW-DSC
:
:
:
:
:
:
ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery”
(document #9), “Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline” (document #11) and “Defendant’s
… Motion to Extend Summary Judgment Motion Deadlines” (document #15), as well as
the parties’ briefs and exhibits.
On September 29, 2016, following a telephonic discovery conference, the Court
ordered that “Plaintiff [be] allowed to conduct 30(b)(6) deposition and document
production on issue regarding prorating bonus over a three month period.” Docket entry
dated September 29, 2016.
The parties scheduled the 30(b)(6) deposition for October 19, 2016. Plaintiff’s
counsel requested to take the deposition telephonically. Sun Life’s designee, Sorana
Babau, Associate Director of Appeals, attended the deposition at Sun Life’s counsel’s
office in Boston, Massachusetts.
Plaintiff’s counsel asked Ms. Babau if she had performed the search for the
documents that Defendant produced on the proration topic. Ms. Babau replied that the

search had been performed by another person, Donna Zehn. Ms. Babau also testified,
however, that she had reviewed the documents and was confident that production was
complete. She also testified that she was the person responsible for training and other
procedures related to the manner in which Defendant prorated bonuses and was prepared
to testify on that topic.
Rather than complete the deposition of Ms. Babau, Plaintiff’s counsel suspended it
over Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Defendant to designate
Ms. Zehn as its Rule 30(b)(6) witness.
The Court concludes that Ms. Babau was the proper designee. For this and the
other reasons stated in Defendant’s brief (document #13), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
(document #9) is denied.
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline” (document #11) and
“Defendant’s … Motion to Extend Summary Judgment Motion Deadlines” (document
#15) are denied as moot.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 5, 2016