Roundtree et al v. Raytheon Technologies Corp
Filing
160
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court grants in part and denies in part Raytheons Amended 143 Motion for Protection Regarding Plaintiffs' Proposed Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Topics. The Court determines that, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) and 26(c)(3), the parties will bear their own expenses, including attorneys' fees, in connection with this motion. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 1/28/2025) (agc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MARIAN PAYNE, LATOYA
STUART, SYLVIA MATTHEWS,
and BILLY KELLY,
Plaintiffs,
V.
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORP.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 3:22-cv-2675-BN
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Background
The remaining four Plaintiffs, Billy Kelly, Sylvia Matthews, Marian Payne,
and Latoya Stuart, seek the deposition testimony of Defendant Raytheon Company
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).
The parties’ counsel conferred on September 19, 2024 as to Plaintiffs’ Amended
Notice of Intent to Take the Oral Deposition of a Corporate Representative, which
included 82 topics. The parties’ counsel agreed on 5 topics, and Plaintiffs removed 5
topics.
And, then, Raytheon’s Motion for Protection Regarding Plaintiffs’ Proposed
Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Topics [Dkt. No. 135] presented its objections to the
remaining 72 topics for the Court’s resolution through a 103-page joint report filed as
the Court’s Standing Order on Discovery and Other Non-Dispositive Motions [Dkt.
-1-
No. 115] requires. See Dkt. No. 135-1.
The Court then ordered that, because it is apparent that the parties can and
should agree to a much shorter, narrowed list of topics that incorporates the matters
on which the parties have landed on agreement and the matters that Plaintiffs have
agreed to remove or narrow and that drops objections that Raytheon is not standing
on in agreeing to a narrower topic, the parties’ counsel are directed to confer again
and file an Amended Joint Report Regarding Discovery Dispute that accomplishes
that goal and does not add entirely new topics or objections. See Dkt. No. 139.
The parties’ counsel did so, and Raytheon filed an Amended Motion for
Protection Regarding Plaintiffs’ Proposed Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Topics [Dkt. No.
143] along with an Amended Joint Report Regarding Discovery Dispute [Dkt. No.
143-1].
Legal Standards
The Court has laid out the standards that govern a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c) motion for protective order will not repeat those standards here. See
McKinney/Pearl Rest. Partners, L.P. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 322 F.R.D. 235, 242-45
(N.D. Tex. 2016).
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1) and 30(b)(6), “[a] party who
wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable written notice to
every other party,” and, “[i]n its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the
deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a
governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity
-2-
the matters for examination.” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(1), 30(b)(6).
As most recently amended, Rule 30(b)(6) requires that, “[b]efore or promptly
after the notice or subpoena is served, the serving party and the organization must
confer in good faith about the matters for examination.” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6). The
Advisory Committee Notes to the amended provision explain that “[t]he process of
conferring may be iterative”; that, “[c]onsistent with [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure]
1, the obligation is to confer in good faith about the matters for examination, but the
amendment does not require the parties to reach agreement”; and that, “[i]n some
circumstances, it may be desirable to seek guidance from the court.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has explained in this
context of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition of a corporate
representative that “Rule 30(b)(6) is designed to avoid the possibility that several
officers and managing agents might be deposed in turn, with each disclaiming
personal knowledge of facts that are clearly known to persons within the organization
and thus to the organization itself.” Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d
416, 432-33 (5th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up).
“Therefore, the deponent must make a conscientious good-faith endeavor to
designate the persons having knowledge of the matters sought by [the party noticing
the deposition] and to prepare those persons in order that they can answer fully,
completely, unevasively, the questions posed ... as to the relevant subject matters.”
Id. at 433 (cleaned up).
And “[t]he duty to present and prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) designee goes beyond
-3-
matters personally known to that designee or to matters in which that designee was
personally involved. The deponent must prepare the designee to the extent matters
are reasonably available, whether from documents, past employees, or other sources.”
Id. (cleaned up).
“For Rule 30(b)(6) to effectively function, the requesting party must take care
to designate, with painstaking specificity, the particular subject areas that are
intended to be questioned, and that are relevant to the issues in dispute.” Dennis v.
United States, No. 3:16-cv-3148-G-BN, 2017 WL 4778708, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23,
2017) (cleaned up).
And, so, “Rule 30(b)(6) requires that a party seeking to depose an organization
‘must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination.’” Id.
(quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)). “Otherwise, an overly broad Rule 30(b)(6) notice
may subject the noticed party to an impossible task. If the noticed organization
cannot identify the outer limits of the areas of inquiry noticed, compliant designation
is not feasible.” Id. (cleaned up).
“The discovering party’s deposition notice is also subject to limitations under
[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26,” including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(1)’s general provision “that a party may obtain discovery of any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs
of the case.” MC Trilogy Tex., LLC v. City of Heath, Tex., No. 3:22-cv-2154-D, 2024
WL 1641233, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2024) (cleaned up).
“Under Rule 26(b)(1), [as amended,] discoverable matter must be both relevant
-4-
and proportional to the needs of the case – which are related but distinct
requirements. To be relevant under Rule 26(b)(1), … information need not, by itself,
prove or disprove a claim or defense or have strong probative force or value. If it were
otherwise, it would make little sense for Rule 26(b)(1) to direct courts to consider
whether discovery that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense is also important
in resolving the issues.” Baker v. Walters, 652 F. Supp. 3d 768, 778 (N.D. Tex. 2023)
(cleaned up). But a topic seeking information that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense still must also “comply with Rule 26(b)(1)’s proportionality limits.” VeroBlue
Farms USA Inc. v. Wulf, 345 F.R.D. 406, 418 (N.D. Tex. 2021) (cleaned up).
And Federal Rule of Civil Procedure “26(b)(2)(C) also provides that a court
must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure when (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample
opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed
discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” MC Trilogy, 2024 WL
1641233, at *3 (cleaned up).
Analysis
The topics now in dispute are Nos. 1-3, 5-6, 8-14, 16-17, 20-31, and 33-36.
“Plaintiffs agreed to limit the temporal scope of their requests to five years,
where applicable,” and “also agreed to remove topics regarding retaliation.” Dkt. No.
143-1 at 3 of 44.
-5-
And the parties explain that “[t]he matters in dispute can be categorized as
follows: the breadth and subject matter scope as related to claims or defenses; the
scope of time and geographical area; and the scope of comparators.” Id. (cleaned up).
The Court now makes the following rulings on each topic.
Topic 1: “Defendant’s position or opinion on whether loss of talented African
American workers is a problem or potential problem for Defendant”
For the reasons that Raytheon persuasively explains, this topic is too far afield
of the factual issues that will be decided on any trial of Plaintiffs’ claims and, so, is,
at the least not proportional to the needs of the case. The Court sustains Raytheon’s
objection to this topic, on which Raytheon will not be required to present a
representative to testify.
But Raytheon is reminded that an objection that a discovery request is not
“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is misplaced”
because “[t]he 2015 amendments to Rule 26 deleted from the definition of relevance
information that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence because [t]he phrase has been used by some, incorrectly, to define the scope
of discovery and has continued to create problems given its ability to swallow any
other limitation on the scope of discovery.” VeroBlue Farms USA, Inc. v. Wulf, No.
3:19-cv-764-L, 2019 WL 13193949, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2019) (cleaned up).
Topic 2: “knowledge or training of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended
(42 U.S.C. § 1981)”
The Court agrees that Raytheon’s proposal to produce a representative to
testify regarding the decision-maker(s)’ knowledge of or training on Raytheon’s equal
-6-
employment and non-discrimination policies applicable to Plaintiffs is sufficient to
cover what is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and proportion to the needs of the case,
including Plaintiffs’ seeking punitive damages. The Court orders Raytheon to present
a representative to testify on Topic No. 2 only as so modified.
Topic 3: “training of supervisors, human resource representatives, and
third party investigators who had oversight or made decisions concerning
Plaintiffs to recognize and prevent race discrimination and retaliation in
the workplace”
Raytheon agrees to produce a representative to testify regarding training
received by Plaintiffs’ supervisors/managers and by any decision-maker(s) on
Raytheon’s equal employment and non-discrimination/retaliation policies applicable
to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are willing to limit the topic to the decision makers; immediate
supervisor overseeing whether the decision makers are discriminating; Tom Shaw,
Vice President of Business Services (who himself may have been involved in the
decision making), and human resource representatives involved in the process
related to Plaintiffs’ termination of employment. The Court determines that the topic
should, to be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, be modifies to training
on Raytheon’s equal employment and non-discrimination/retaliation policies
applicable to Plaintiffs received by any decision makers; any immediate supervisor
overseeing whether the decision makers are discriminating; and Tom Shaw, Vice
President of Business Services. The Court orders Raytheon to present a
representative to testify on Topic No. 3 only as so modified.
Topic 5: “policies and procedures for investigating reports of race
discrimination and retaliation applicable to Plaintiffs, their supervisors,
-7-
and human resource representatives involved with Plaintiffs”
Where Plaintiffs do not dispute that only Heather Davis complained about
matters relevant to Topic No. 5, and where Heather Davis is no longer a plaintiff in
this case, the Court grants a protective order providing that Raytheon will not be
required to present a representative to testify on this topic.
Topic 6: “the reasons for hiring Plaintiffs”
For the reasons that Plaintiffs persuasively explain, the Court determines that
this topic is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and proportional to the needs of the case
and denies Raytheon’s request for a protective order. Raytheon must present a
representative to testify on this topic.
Topic 8: “job descriptions, including job qualifications, job duties and
responsibilities, essential job functions, job analyses, and job codes, of
positions held by Plaintiffs, their supervisors, the HR professionals that
supported Plaintiffs’ positions, and for Accounts Payable positions in
Raytheon’s Accounts Payable Department in which Plaintiffs’ worked at the
time Raytheon terminated their employment and for the six months
following their termination”
The Court agrees with Raytheon that the only variation on this topic that is
relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and proportional to the needs of the case is the job
description, duties, and qualifications for the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support role at
issue in this case, including the selection qualifications. The Court orders Raytheon
required to present a representative to testify on Topic No. 8 only as so modified. The
job qualifications, job duties and responsibilities, essential job functions, job analyses,
and job codes for positions held by Plaintiffs’ supervisors, any human resources
professionals that supported Plaintiffs’ positions, and any Accounts Payable positions
-8-
in Raytheon’s Accounts Payable Department are outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) in
this case.
Topic 9: “employee recruiting policies, practices, or procedures relating to
hiring in its Accounts Payable Department, within or outside Raytheon,
including job postings or vacancy announcements of positions held by
Plaintiffs or for positions for which they interviewed, including those for
which it hired Puerto Ricans while Plaintiffs were employed and for six
months following their termination based on the ‘numerous employees in
Puerto Rico who assumed some of the job functions that Plaintiff[s]
performed while employed at Raytheon’ (Raytheon’s Response to
Interrogatory No. 4)”
Raytheon
agrees
to
produce
a
representative
to
testify
regarding
hiring/recruitment policies applicable to the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support role at
issue. The Court determines that the relevant and proportional scope of Topic No. 9
extends further and includes the hiring/recruitment policies applicable to the Sr.
Coordinator Finance Support role at issue as well as for the positions into which
Raytheon hired employees in Puerto Rico who, up to six months after the date on
which any of the Plaintiffs last worked for Raytheon in its Accounts Payable
Department, assumed some of the job functions that Plaintiffs performed while
employed at Raytheon. The Court orders Raytheon to present a representative to
testify on Topic No. 9 only as so modified.
Topic 10: “descriptions, identification, or factors or criteria considered in
the decision-making process for job selection and assignment, promotion,
training, or transfers of positions held by Plaintiffs, and for which they were
qualified, within the Accounts Payable department, at the time Raytheon
terminated their employment and for six months following their
termination, including for those positions for which Plaintiff interviewed,
and those positions given to Puerto Ricans in the Accounts Payable
department at the time Raytheon terminated their employment and for six
months following their termination”
-9-
Raytheon agrees to produce a representative to testify regarding the selection
criteria applicable to the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support role at issue. The Court
determines that the relevant and proportional scope of Topic No. 10 extends further
and includes the selection criteria applicable to the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support
role at issue as well as for the positions into which Raytheon hired employees in
Puerto Rico who, up to six months after the date on which any of the Plaintiffs last
worked for Raytheon in its Accounts Payable Department, assumed some of the job
functions that Plaintiffs performed while employed at Raytheon. The Court orders
Raytheon to present a representative to testify on Topic No. 10 only as so modified.
Topic 11: “the performance metrics and numbers in SAP for all Plaintiffs
and Accounts Payable employees for 2021-present, including the metrics
and numbers for the ‘numerous employees in Puerto Rico who assumed
some of the job functions that Plaintiff[s] performed while employed at
Raytheon’ (Response to Interrogatory No. 4)”
The performance of employees after Plaintiffs stopped working at Raytheon
are, at the least, not proportional to the needs of this case presenting the specific
employment claims of four individuals who – whether terminated (as Plaintiffs
contend) or not selected for a particular, permanent position after their limited-term
position was eliminated (as Raytheon insists) – were not selected for a Sr. Coordinator
Finance Support. But the performance metrics and numbers for Plaintiffs compared
to those – from the same period in which Plaintiffs were employed at Raytheon – of
any existing Raytheon employees who were assumed some of the job functions that
Plaintiffs performed while employed at Raytheon would be relevant and proportional
-10-
to the needs of the case. The Court modifies this topic to be limited to the performance
metrics and numbers, during the period of time in which Plaintiffs worked for
Raytheon in its Accounts Payable Department, for all Plaintiffs and any Accounts
Payable employees who assumed some of the job functions that Plaintiffs performed
while employed at Raytheon. The Court orders Raytheon to present a representative
to testify on Topic No. 11 only as so modified.
Topic 12: “the performance metrics and numbers in SAP Thomas Shaw,
Johnalaine Brevelle, Juan Franco, Michale Sheveland, Esey Kidane, Melissa
Kipness, Heather Johnson, and Kimberly Gibson for 2021-2023”
For the reasons that Plaintiffs persuasively explain, the Court determines that
this topic is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and proportional to the needs of the case but
will be limited to the performance metrics and numbers during the period of time in
which Plaintiffs worked for Raytheon in its Accounts Payable Department. The Court
orders Raytheon to present a representative to testify on Topic No. 12 only as so
modified.
Topic 13: “plans, guidelines, instructions, or policies for interviewing or
selection of employees for positions held by Plaintiffs and for which they
were interviewed, as well as the ‘numerous employees in Puerto Rico who
assumed some of the job functions that Plaintiff[s] performed while
employed at Raytheon’”
Raytheon agrees to produce a representative to testify regarding the
interviewing and/or selection of employees for the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support
role at issue. The Court determines that the relevant and proportional scope of Topic
No. 13 extends further and includes the interviewing and/or selection of employees
for the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support role at issue as well as the positions that
-11-
Plaintiffs held while working for Raytheon in its Accounts Payable Department and
for any positions into which Raytheon hired employees in Puerto Rico who, up to six
months after the date on which any of the Plaintiffs last worked for Raytheon in its
Accounts Payable Department, assumed some of the job functions that Plaintiffs
performed while employed at Raytheon. The Court orders Raytheon to present a
representative to testify on Topic No. 13 only as so modified.
Topic 14: “communications between any employee in Raytheon’s human
resource department and any managers concerning any termination of
employment, layoff, promotion, or non-hiring of any employees (temporary
or permanent) of Plaintiffs and the hiring or assignment of persons to
positions for which Plaintiffs interviewed and who held the same position
as Plaintiffs and the hiring or assignment of ‘numerous employees in Puerto
Rico who assumed some of the job functions that Plaintiff[s] performed
while employed at Raytheon’”
“[T]here are some kinds of contention interrogatories where courts have felt
that, in their discretion, they could say it ought to be a deposition instead, like a
30(b)(6) deposition.” State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Freehold Mgmt., Inc., No. 3:16-cv2255-L, 2018 WL 3548866, at *11 (N.D. Tex. July 24, 2018) (cleaned up). But there
are also some topics that are not suited to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as opposed to,
for example, a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 request for production or Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 33 interrogatory. This is one of those topics under the
circumstances and is, at the least, not proportional to the needs of the case as a Rule
30(b)(6) topic. The Court sustains Raytheon’s objection to this topic, on which
Raytheon will not be required to present a representative to testify.
Topic 16: “the qualifications, race, job duties, resume, and pay of all
employees (temporary or permanent) who interviewed for positions held by
-12-
Plaintiffs and for any position Raytheon for which Raytheon interviewed
Plaintiffs, including but not limited to Kevin Lau, Jessica Lawhorn, Eddie
Hanna, Estefania Rojas, JudeMarie Tee, Shirley Hernandez, Jessica Cortez,
Autumn Castleberry, Ming-En (Andy) Tsai, ‘numerous employees in Puerto
Rico who assumed some of the job functions that Plaintiff[s] performed
while employed at Raytheon’ (Raytheon Interrogatory Response No. 4), and
the Plaintiffs”
Plaintiffs were hired for the positions in which they worked for Raytheon in its
Accounts Payable Department. The characteristics of others who interviewed for
those positions is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Raytheon agrees to produce a
representative to testify regarding the race and qualifications (from Raytheon’s
perspective) of Plaintiffs and the other candidates who interviewed for the Sr.
Coordinator Finance Support role at issue. The Court determines that the relevant
and proportional scope of Topic No. 16 extends further and includes the race and
qualifications (from Raytheon’s perspective) of Plaintiffs and the other candidates
who interviewed for the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support role at issue as well as the
other candidates who interviewed for any positions into which Raytheon hired
employees in Puerto Rico who, up to six months after the date on which any of the
Plaintiffs last worked for Raytheon in its Accounts Payable Department, assumed
some of the job functions that Plaintiffs performed while employed at Raytheon. The
Court orders Raytheon to present a representative to testify on Topic No. 16 only as
so modified.
Topic 17: “communications, emails, chats, and text messages about the
hiring process from 2020-present in the Accounts Payable Department,
including communications about Plaintiffs”
Topic 20: “communications between any person on the interview committee
between themselves or any other person about the applicants”
-13-
Topic 21: “all notes of any person on the interview committee for Plaintiffs
and all who applied for the positions for which Plaintiffs interviewed about
the application and selection process”
Raytheon agrees to produce a representative to testify generally regarding the
interview/selection process for the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support role at issue.
Plaintiffs agree to limit Topic No. 17 to communications between Raytheon HR
representatives and managers and written communications with comparator
employees. But, for the reasons explained as to Topic No. 14, the Court sustains
Raytheon’s objection to this topic and orders Raytheon to present a representative to
testify on Topic Nos. 17, 20, and 21 only as limited to testifying generally regarding
the interview/selection process for the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support role at issue.
Topic 22: “the identity of persons, including race, qualifications, resume,
and pay, who made the final decision on the selection to terminate or not
hire the Plaintiffs”
Raytheon agrees to produce a representative to testify regarding the name and
race of the individual(s) who made the final decision not to select Plaintiffs for the Sr.
Coordinator Finance Support role at issue. Plaintiffs maintain that they were
terminated; Raytheon disagrees. That is not a matter that the Court can or should
resolve at this point. The Court instead orders Raytheon to produce a representative
to testify regarding the name and race of the individual(s) who made the final decision
not to select Plaintiffs for the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support role at issue or to, if
it happened, terminate Plaintiffs from the positions in which they worked in
Raytheon’s Accounts Payable Department. The Court orders Raytheon to present a
representative to testify on Topic No. 22 only as so modified.
-14-
Topic 23: “the number of employees in the Accounts Payable department in
2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, this includes remote employees,
of positions held by Plaintiffs, their supervisors, the Human Resource
professionals that supported Plaintiffs’ positions, and for any position
Raytheon denied to Plaintiffs”
Raytheon agrees to present a representative to testify regarding the number
of Accounts Payable employees working in the temporary roles for which Plaintiffs
were hired and the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support role at issue, the supervisors of
those roles, and the HR professionals that supported those roles in 2021 and 2022.
The Court determines that the topic should, to be relevant and proportional to the
needs of the case, limited to that scope. The Court orders Raytheon to present a
representative to testify on Topic No. 23 only as so modified.
Topic 24: “the growth rate generally of the Accounts Payable department,
including the business strategy for needing to hire or fire employees based
on the growth or shrinking of the facilities”
For the reasons that Raytheon persuasively explains, this topic is too far afield
of the factual issues that will be decided on any trial of Plaintiffs’ claims and, so, is,
at the least not proportional to the needs of the case. The Court sustains Raytheon’s
objection to this topic, on which Raytheon will not be required to present a
representative to testify.
Topic 25: “the cost of training a new Accounts Payable employee in the
Accounts Payable department versus the cost of retaining a current
Accounts Payable employee in Raytheon’s Accounts Payable Department”
For the reasons that Raytheon persuasively explains, this topic is too far afield
of the factual issues that will be decided on any trial of Plaintiffs’ claims and, so, is,
at the least not proportional to the needs of the case. The Court sustains Raytheon’s
-15-
objection to this topic, on which Raytheon will not be required to present a
representative to testify.
Topic 26: “the policy and recordkeeping of employee race and demographic
information of positions held by Plaintiffs and for the positions for which
they interviewed, including the ‘numerous employees in Puerto Rico who
assumed some of the job functions that Plaintiff[s] performed while
employed at Raytheon’ (Raytheon interrogatory Response No. 4)”
Raytheon agrees to present a representative to testify regarding its EEO
policies/procedures applicable to Plaintiffs and their direct supervisors/managers.
The Court determines that the relevant and proportional scope of Topic No. 26
extends further and includes Raytheon’s EEO policies/procedures applicable to
Plaintiffs and their direct supervisors/managers as well as to the employees hired for
the Sr. Coordinator Finance Support role at issue and for the positions into which
Raytheon hired employees in Puerto Rico who, up to six months after the date on
which any of the Plaintiffs last worked for Raytheon in its Accounts Payable
Department, assumed some of the job functions that Plaintiffs performed while
employed at Raytheon. The Court orders Raytheon to present a representative to
testify on Topic No. 26 only as so modified.
Topic 27: “all EEO reports or studies of discrimination based on race,
including any proposals to management to prevent or remedy any
discrimination based on race in Texas facilities for the last 5 years”
Topic 28: “employee surveys or summaries of employee surveys that
address, in whole or in part, employment practices and policies,
discrimination, compensation, morale, management conduct, or employee
interest or preference in advancement or transfer in the Accounts Payable
department for the last 5 years”
For the reasons that Raytheon persuasively explains, these topics are too far
-16-
afield of the factual issues that will be decided on any trial of Plaintiffs’ claims and,
so, is, at the least not proportional to the needs of the case. The requested information
is, at the least, not proportional to the needs of this case presenting the specific
employment claims of four individuals who – whether terminated (as Plaintiffs
contend) or not selected for a particular, permanent position after their limited-term
position was eliminated (as Raytheon insists) – were not selected for a Sr. Coordinator
Finance Support. The Court sustains Raytheon’s objection to Topic Nos. 27, 28, is
topic, on which Raytheon will not be required to present a representative to testify.
Topic 29: “complaints or reports of race discrimination and retaliation filed
by anyone in the Richardson, Texas, facility in the last 5 years, including
investigation process, files, logs, reports, witness statements, and
documents”
Topic 30: “lawsuits of race discrimination and retaliation filed by anyone at
the Richardson facility in the last 5 years, including investigation process,
files, logs, reports, witness statements, and documents”
Consistent with the Court’s prior ruling, see Dkt. No. 97, the Court modifies
these topics to be limited to complaints and lawsuits alleging racial discrimination, if
any, during the last 5 years, by Black employees at the Richardson, Texas facility
who reported to Plaintiffs’ direct supervisors. The Court orders Raytheon to present
a representative to testify on Topic Nos. 29 and 30 only as so modified.
Topic 31: “each plaintiff’s qualifications and job history at the Richardson
Avenue facility”
For the reasons that Plaintiffs persuasively explain, the Court determines that
this topic is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and proportional to the needs of the case
and denies Raytheon’s request for a protective order. Raytheon must present a
-17-
representative to testify on this topic.
Topic 33: “the value of each element of Plaintiffs’ compensation, such as
wages and benefits, including life insurance, health insurance, workers’
compensation, and pension plan”
Plaintiffs maintain that they were terminated; Raytheon disagrees. That is not
a matter that the Court can or should resolve at this point. The Court determines
that this topic is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and proportional to the needs of the
case and denies Raytheon’s request for a protective order. Raytheon must present a
representative to testify on this topic.
Topic 34: “net worth of Defendant”
For the reasons that Plaintiffs persuasively explain, the Court determines that
this topic is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and proportional to the needs of the case
and denies Raytheon’s request for a protective order. Raytheon must present a
representative to testify on this topic.
Topic 35: “the authentication and foundation of the documents produced”
Raytheon’s must either reach agreement with Plaintiffs’ counsel on a
reasonable manner to authenticate documents that Raytheon has produced,
including a possible stipulation in advance of trial, or must present a representative
to testify on this topic.
Topic 36: “all facts and documents upon which you base your contention set
forth in Raytheon’s affirmative defenses”
For the reasons that Plaintiffs persuasively explain, the Court determines that
this topic is timely at this stage of the case and relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and
-18-
proportional to the needs of the case and denies Raytheon’s request for a protective
order. Raytheon must present a representative to testify on this topic.
Conclusion
For the reasons and to the extent explained above, the Court grants in part
and denies in part Raytheon’s Amended Motion for Protection Regarding Plaintiffs’
Proposed Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Topics [Dkt. No. 143].
And, based on these rulings and considering all the circumstances, the Court
determines that, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) and 26(c)(3), the
parties will bear their own expenses, including attorneys’ fees, in connection with this
motion.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 28, 2025
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-19-
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?