Floyd v. Geico Insurance Company

Filing 69

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 47 Motion for Sanctions signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JOHN ANDREW FLOYD,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C17-1154-JCC
ORDER

v.
GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY,

13

Defendant.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to enforce court order and for

16

sanctions (Dkt. No. 47). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant

17

record, the Court hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

18

The Court has described the facts of this case in previous orders (Dkt. Nos. 22, 32) and

19

will not repeat them here. Plaintiff now seeks an order enforcing this Court’s previous order that

20

Defendant produce all communications between Plaintiff and the claims adjusters on the Ozog,

21

Mealing, and Musselman claims (Dkt. No. 46) (“the July 25th order”). (Dkt. No. 47.) Plaintiff

22

also asks for the following sanctions: (1) the option of re-deposing any of Defendant’s witnesses,

23

at Defendant’s expense, (2) because Mr. White was an unprepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness,

24

requiring Defendant to pay for Mr. White’s previous deposition, and (3) an order prohibiting

25

Defendant from asserting that Plaintiff did not adequately supervise the Ozog, Mealing, and

26

Musselman claims. (Id.) Defendant asserts that it has complied with the July 25th order and that
ORDER
C17-1154-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

Plaintiff’s requested sanctions are unnecessary and baseless. (Dkt. No. 54.) As previously stated,

2

the Court strongly disfavors discovery motions and prefers that the parties resolve the issues on

3

their own.

4

I.

5

COMPLIANCE WITH THE JULY 25TH ORDER
Plaintiff argues that because Defendant did not comply with the July 25th order,

6

Defendant should be prohibited from arguing that Plaintiff failed to adequately supervise the

7

Ozog, Mealing, and Musselman claims. (Dkt. No. 47 at 4.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant has

8

not complied with the July 25th order because Defendant has not produced emails between

9

Plaintiff and his claims adjusters. (Id. at 11–12.) However, Defendant certifies that, even prior to

10

the July 25th order, it had already produced all reasonably accessible communications between

11

Plaintiff and his claims adjusters, with regard to the Ozog, Mealing, and Musselman claims.

12

(Dkt. No. 54 at 5–6.) In an effort to ensure compliance with the July 25th order, Defendant

13

backed up additional Outlook records and determined that, it had indeed produced all

14

communications between Plaintiff and his claims adjusters with regard to the three claims and

15

that any communications found in the Outlook records were duplicative of those already

16

produced. (Id. at 7.)

17

Plaintiff appears to be arguing that Defendant should be responsible for restoring and

18

backing up monthly Outlook records and either (1) producing that duplicative information to

19

Plaintiff or (2) ensuring that there is no additional, non-duplicative communications in any of

20

those records. What Plaintiff asks for is unnecessarily burdensome and duplicative, and not

21

required under the Federal Rules. The Outlook records contain the same information that the

22

Atlas database contains (see, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 54 at 5–8, 60-2 at 46) and communications stored on

23

the Atlas database have already been produced to Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 54 at 6). The July 25th order

24

did not require Defendant to produce identical copies of the communications on all of the

25

different servers or databases that Defendant uses; it only required Defendant to produce any

26

communications regarding the Ozog, Mealing, and Musselman claims that had not already been
ORDER
C17-1154-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

produced.

2

II.

RE-DEPOSING DEFENDANT’S WITNESSES

3

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to the option of re-deposing any of Defendant’s

4

witnesses, at Defendant’s expense, because Defendant produced relevant communications either

5

right before or after depositions. (Dkt. No. 47 at 5–11.) Plaintiff argues that these productions

6

were prejudicial because Plaintiff was unable to question the deponents about the late-produced

7

documents. (Id.)

8

First, after reviewing the sequence of discovery production and depositions, the Court

9

does not find any sequence of production and deposition so prejudicial to Plaintiff that it

10

warrants reopening discovery or sanctioning Defendant. Second, Plaintiff did not seek a

11

discovery plan and the Federal Rules do not require Defendant to produce all relevant documents

12

prior to the deposition of each and every witness. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3). It would be one

13

thing if Plaintiff was requesting to re-depose a specific witness on a specific subject due to

14

Defendant’s late disclosure of relevant documents, but Defendant need not pay for additional

15

depositions for all of its witnesses merely because Plaintiff would prefer document production

16

was completed prior to depositions.

17

III.

RE-DEPOSING JOSEPH WHITE

18

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to the cost of Mr. White’s deposition and that

19

Defendant should be required to pay for the costs of re-deposing Mr. White, in Seattle, because

20

Mr. White was an unprepared Rule 30(b)(6) deponent. (Dkt. No. 47 at 14–15.) Federal Rule of

21

Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) allows a party to gather information about a corporation from a person

22

designated to serve as the voice of the corporation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). “In determining

23

whether a corporation has met its Rule 30(b)(6) obligation, courts examine the degree and type

24

of effort made by the corporation to prepare the witness.” Shapiro v. America’s Credit Union,

25

Case No. C12-5237-RBL, 2013 WL 12310679, slip op. at 2 (W.D. Wash. 2013). “Broad topics

26

of inquiry, however, do not ‘give rise to an obligation to prepare a witness to answer every
ORDER
C17-1154-JCC
PAGE - 3

1

conceivable detailed question relating to the topic.’” Id. (citing United States v. Guidant Corp.,

2

Case No. 3:08-0842, 2009 WL 3103836, slip op. at 3 (M.D. Tenn. 2009)). “[T]he fact that the

3

corporate designee cannot answer every question posed during the deposition does not mean that

4

the corporation failed to satisfy its Rule 30(b)(6) obligation to prepare the witness.” Id.

5

Upon review of Mr. White’s deposition, Defendant met its Rule 30(b)(6) obligation to

6

prepare the witness. To prepare for the deposition, Mr. White reviewed the relevant systems and

7

documents, and conferred with many people to fill any gaps in his knowledge. (Dkt. Nos. 55 at 2,

8

60-2 at 6–7.) Although Plaintiff points out deficiencies in Mr. White’s testimony, Mr. White was

9

an overall competent and knowledgeable witness. He provided much of the information Plaintiff

10

sought and where there were shortcomings that were brought to Defendant’s attention,

11

Defendant followed up with supplemental information and offered to have Mr. White provide the

12

supplemental information via declaration. (See Dkt. Nos. 54 at 13, 57-1 at 76.) Mr. White cannot

13

be expected to know every detail about the many broad topics in the deposition notice.

14

Defendant met its Rule 30(b)(6) obligation and is not required to bear the costs of Mr. White’s

15

initial deposition or to pay for another deposition.

16
17
18

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce court order and for sanctions
(Dkt. No. 47) is DENIED.
DATED this 25th day of October 2018.

A

19
20
21

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-1154-JCC
PAGE - 4