In Puckett v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:22-cv-0350 KJM DB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2024), California Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions after the plaintiff served notices of depositions pursuant to FRCP Rule 30(b)(6) after the defendants repeatedly stated that certain documents did not exist or were not maintained.

Case Discussion

In this case, the plaintiff was prosecuted and convicted for robbery and murder and served almost 19 years until 2020, when the California superior court granted plaintiff’s writ of habeas corpus and vacated his convictions. A year later, the superior court found the plaintiff factually innocent. The plaintiff then filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the defendants deprived him of his constitutional rights by withholding or ignoring exonerating evidence.

In response to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, the defendants repeatedly stated that various documents never existed or were not maintained and thus defendants could not produce responsive documents. The plaintiff, therefore, served notices of depositions pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). The plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) depositions sought to address three deposition topics:

1. Any policy, procedure, or practice governing Your preservation or destruction of the Documents to type of Documents relevant to this action, including those sought in the Requests for Production.
2. Any searches you conducted to identify Documents requested in the Requests for Production.
3. Any actions taken to respond to the Requests for Production.

In response to these notices, defendants objected and refused to produce a witness to testify, leading to the plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions.

Judge’s Ruling

In addressing the first defendant objections to the plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions, Judge Barnes stated: “Defendants assert that ‘[o]ther courts faced with discovery disputes regarding requests for information on document storage and retention have found that these requests are impermissible’ citing to Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties, Inc… Defendants’ reliance on Ford is confusing as Ford supports plaintiff’s motion”, noting that the Court in Ford stated: “If Edgewood wishes to press its argument that correspondence or other documentation in the realms in which it is concerned about must exist, it can take that up in depositions with fact witnesses who have knowledge in these areas.”

Judge Barnes also rejected the defendants’ citation to Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services, Inc. v. Irex Corporation, stating: “it appears that in Brand a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition was held which proved significant.” She added: “The courts in Ford and Brand are not alone in recognizing the value of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions in dealing with issues such as those presented here.”

Judge Barnes also responded to the defendants’ objected to the deposition topics based on a lack of time frame by stating: “Plaintiff, however, has stipulated to a specific timeframe.” And she responded to defendants’ citation of another case (Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l Ltd.) in support of their argument that the discovery “prematurely seeks discovery on discovery without any evidence of bad faith” by stating: “As was true with Ford and Brand, defendants’ reliance of Freedman is also confusing and misplaced. Freedman concerned a motion for reconsideration of a denial of requests for production into the opposing party’s document investigation, not Rule 30(b)(6) depositions…Moreover, the court in Freedman acknowledged that ‘discovery on discovery is sometimes warranted’ and that ‘where a party makes some showing that a producing party’s production has been incomplete, a court may order discovery designed to test the sufficiency of that party’s discovery efforts in order to capture additional relevant material.’…Here, defendants’ production has been less than incomplete, it has been essentially nonexistent. And plaintiff is seeking discovery that could ascertain whether defendants’ production has in fact been incomplete.”

In response to defendants’ argument that deposition topic number 1 is “not reasonably particularly (sic) … and appears to be a request for production”, Judge Barnes stated: “Why defendants think the deposition topic is a request for production is entirely unclear. Moreover, the deposition topic does appear to the undersigned to be reasonably particular… As this action concerns allegations that the defendants deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights by withholding or ignoring exonerating evidence, documents relevant to this action would include documents relating to investigatory materials, warrants, evidence, jail files, lab reports, trial preparation materials, etc.”

Judge Barnes also rejected defendants’ request for a protective order, stating: “The party seeking to limit discovery through a protective order must show “good cause” for the protective order… Defendants’ argument is a broad allegation of harm, unsubstantiated by a specific example or articulated reasoning.”

As a result, Judge Barnes granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions, ordering the defendant to designate their witnesses within 14 days and to complete Rule 30(b)(6) depositions within 35 days.

So, what do you think? Could the defendants have made better objections to conducting the depositions? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.