Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC, et al v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 268

ORDER granting in part and denying in part #226 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6

7 EAGLE HARBOR HOLDINGS, LLC, and
MEDIUSTECH, LLC

CASE NO. C11-5503 BHS

8
Plaintiffs,

9
v.

10

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER

Defendant.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (“Ford”)

14 motion for protective order (Dkt. 226). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support
15 of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants in part and
16

denies in part the motion for the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17

On September 13, 2013, Plaintiffs requested a deposition date for Ford Executive Vice

18
President of Global Marketing, Sales and Service, James Farley. Although Ford produced some

19
of Mr. Farley’s emails and other responsive documents, Ford declined to produce Mr. Farley for

20
a deposition. On February 14, 2014, Ford filed the instant motion seeking a protective order

21
22

ORDER - 1

1 preventing Plaintiffs from taking Mr. Farley’s deposition. Dkt. 226. On February 26, 2014,
2 Plaintiffs responded. Dkt. 236. On February 28, 2014, Ford replied. Dkt. 241.
II. DISCUSSION

3
4
5

Ford argues that Mr. Farley is an “apex” official and, as such, Plaintiffs have failed to
show that Mr. Farley has unique personal knowledge of this case and that Plaintiffs can obtain
their desired information through a less intrusive and burdensome means than a deposition.

6
Even if the Court considered Mr. Farley to be an “apex” official, Plaintiffs have shown a need

7
for his deposition. Mr. Farley’s numerous public and private statements regarding the selling

8
9

power of Ford’s SYNC system show that Mr. Farley has relevant information regarding
Plaintiffs’ damages. See Dkt. 236 at 11–14. Moreover, the Court finds that a short deposition

10 would not unduly burden Mr. Farley, especially considering the fact that Plaintiffs are seeking a
11 permanent injunction against Ford’s sale of the current SYNC system, which Mr. Farley has
12 described as a “difference maker” for Ford’s sales. The Court, however, will limit the deposition
13 to half a day, or three and a half hours, because, although relevant, the information Plaintiffs seek
14 appears to be limited only to the issue of damages. Therefore, the Court denies Ford’s motion
15 for a protective order.
III. ORDER

16
17

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Ford’s motion for a protective order (Dkt. 226) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

18
Dated this 18th day of March, 2014.

19

A

20
21

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

22

ORDER - 2