Universal Technologies, Inc. et al v. Cleek et al

Filing 88

ORDER re discovery dispute. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(Brown, Joe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
UNIVERSAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
JESSE E. ROGERS, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:14-0091
Chief Judge Sharp/Brown
Jury Demand

O R D E R
Another lengthy telephone conference was held with the
parties

in

this

matter

concerning

a

discovery

dispute.

The

Plaintiff was seeking to schedule a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
ARAIZA and ARAIZA, LLC.
Prior to the telephone conference the parties submitted
joint position statements. The Clerk will file the joint statement
of the Plaintiff and the Defendant ARAIZA as Attachment 1 to this
order, and the position statement of the Defendant ARAIZA. LLC as
Attachment 2 to this order.
There

has

been

controversy

about

the

scheduling

of

depositions in this case from the beginning. See Docket Entries 45,
78, 84.
Unfortunately, from the Magistrate Judge’s standpoint,
the parties have not sufficiently conferred about the taking of
depositions, of the timing of depositions, and they have waited too
long to

raise

issues

they

were

having

difficulties

with.

In

particular, the problem that is the subject of this telephone call

was

flagged by the Magistrate Judge back on September 9, 2015

(Docket Entry 78).
The

issue

before

the

Magistrate

Judge

at

today’s

telephone conference was whether the Plaintiff is entitled to take
a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of ARAIZA, and ARAIZA, LLC. ARAIZA
contends

that

it

is

a

sole

proprietorship

of

Ms.

Cleek

and

therefore not an artificial entity required to submit to a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition. IRAIZA, LLC admits that it is in fact an LLC
and is subject to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
However, both Defendants contend that the Plaintiff has
taken the deposition of Ms. Cleek who claims to be the sole
proprietor of ARAIZA and who would be the Rule 30(b)(6) witness for
ARAIZA, LLC for over 9½ hours. They contend that the Plaintiff
failed to ask her questions that would normally be asked of a Rule
30(b)(6) witness, although they had every opportunity to do so and
no objections would have been made to her being so questioned. They
therefore contend that any efforts to require her to submit to
additional depositions are improper and should not be allowed.
The Plaintiff on the other hand contends that they have
made it clear all along that they are not in agreement that Ms.
Cleek operates ARAIZA as a sole proprietorship and further contends
that there is little if any separation between ARAIZA and ARAIZA,
LLC.
After listening to lengthy arguments of counsel, the
Master Judge for the purpose of resolving this issue only, finds
that consistent with interrogatory responses a year ago, that
2

ARAIZA purports to be a sole proprietorship and not an artificial
entity. It would not therefore be subject to a 30 (b)(6) deposition
separate from the owner. Nevertheless, the Magistrate Judge will
allow the Plaintiff to take an additional deposition of Ms. Cleek
concerning ARAIZA for a period not to exceed three hours.
The Plaintiff will be permitted to take a four hour
deposition of Rule 30(b)(6) representative of ARAIZA, LLC, whom the
Magistrate Judge understands will be Ms. Cleek. The Magistrate
Judge would suggest that these depositions be scheduled for a
single day and parties may well want to insure that the Magistrate
Judge would be available should they run into an issue that would
need an immediate decision during the course of the deposition.
The present deadlines for completing discovery remain,
and the parties are cautioned that they should not count on the
Magistrate

Judge

extending

the

deadlines,

particularly

as

it

appears that they have not promptly brought difficulties to the
Magistrate Judge’s attention.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

3