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 and the defendants were ordered to designate 30(b)(6) deposition witnesses for the plaintiff to conduct 30(b)(6) depositions.

Case Discussion

This case involved a plaintiff who was exonerated after serving 19 years for a robbery and murder he didn’t commit. Once 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 defendants repeatedly stated that various documents never existed or were not maintained and thus defendants could not produce responsive documents. Plaintiff, therefore, served Notices of depositions pursuant to FRCP Rule 30(b)(6).

Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) depositions seek 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.

Judge’s Ruling

The defendants cited to several cases to support their position in refusing to provide a witness:

Regarding the defendants’ citation of Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties, Inc., Judge Barnes stated: “Defendants’ reliance on Ford is confusing as Ford supports plaintiff’s motion… the court in Ford went on to endorse exactly what plaintiff seeks here, stating: ‘Edgewood, of course, has other avenues of recourse if it truly believes that it is not getting what it is entitled to. The Court notes that no depositions have yet taken place in this litigation. 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.’”

Regarding the defendants’ citation of Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services, Inc. v. Irex Corporation, Judge Barnes stated: “In this regard, as in Ford, the court in Brand was dealing with requests for production of documents at a ‘late stage.’…That is not true here… Moreover, it appears that in Brand a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition was held which proved significant… 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.”

Addressing other objections, Judge Barnes stated: “Defendants have also objected to the deposition topics based on a lack of time frame…Plaintiff, however, has stipulated to a specific timeframe…Defendants also object that the discovery ‘prematurely seeks discovery on discovery without any evidence of bad faith.’…In support of this argument defendants cite to Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l Ltd….in addition to Ford and Brand cited above.”

Continuing, Judge Barnes said: “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.”

Judge Barnes also rejected the defendants’ objections as to burden, stating: “Here, defendants have not provided sufficient details” and a request for a protective order stating: “Here, defendants argue simply that they ‘would be harmed in requiring to expend additional defense costs on matters only tangentially and vaguely related to the issues in this case, or are so vague that if forced to produce on such little information would end up wasting all parties’ time[.]’…Defendants’ argument is a broad allegation of harm, unsubstantiated by a specific example or articulated reasoning.”

So, the plaintiff’s motion to compel was granted and the defendants were ordered to designate 30(b)(6) deposition witnesses within 14 days, with the depositions to be completed within 35 days.

So, what do you think? Are you surprised that the defendants were ordered to designate 30(b)(6) deposition witnesses? Should the Court have addressed their lack of production first? 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.