Iron Mountain Data Centre Germany B.V. v. WSP USA Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-02858
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Iron Mountain v. WSP USA Buildings, Judge Willis ruled Gooderham may be deposed as a managing agent and set expert and discovery deadlines.
The order directly affects Iron Mountain (Nederland) Data Centre Germany B.V. and WSP USA Buildings, Inc. by permitting the deposition of Mr. Gooderham and setting discovery deadlines. It also sets expert-report deadlines involving AECOM and TTSP.
What happened
In Iron Mountain (Nederland) Data Centre Germany B.V. v. WSP USA Buildings, Inc., the court decided whether Mr. Gooderham, an employee of WSP Global, Inc., could be required to give a deposition for WSP USA Buildings, Inc. The court also considered the parties’ proposed schedule for completing discovery and submitting expert reports.
The court found that Mr. Gooderham was a “managing agent” under the applicable test because he had discretion over corporate and litigation-related matters, could be expected to testify for the company, and could be expected to identify with the company’s interests. One factor weighed against that finding because other people had greater authority than him. The court nevertheless concluded that he could be noticed for a deposition.
Judge Willis adopted deadlines for expert reports, rebuttal reports, fact discovery, expert discovery, status letters, alternative dispute resolution, and possible pre-motion conferences. The court also adopted the parties’ agreement that they could not serve new discovery requests without the court’s permission and requested that the Clerk close Docket No. 121.
The detailed version
- Iron Mountain Data Centre Germany B.V. v. WSP USA Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02858
- Lorna Schofield
- May 30, 2024
Background
Judge Schofield referred scheduling and discovery matters to Magistrate Judge Willis. After a May 15 conference, the court directed the parties to submit materials relevant to whether Mr. Gooderham was a “managing agent” who could be required to testify at a deposition. The court also directed the parties to propose an updated case-management schedule.
Managing-Agent Issue
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1), the parties agreed that Mr. Gooderham could be noticed for a deposition only if he qualified as a managing agent under the fact-specific test from United States v. Afram Lines (USA), Ltd. The party seeking the deposition had to provide enough evidence to show at least a close question about that status.
The court considered five factors. First, Mr. Gooderham had general discretion in corporate matters because deposition testimony and emails showed that he could investigate problems and close out design issues. Second, the court found that he could be expected to testify at his employer’s request because he worked for WSP Global, Inc., the parent company of WSP USA Buildings, Inc. Third, the factor concerning whether other employees had higher authority weighed against treating him as a managing agent because WSP identified testimony showing that other individuals had greater authority.
Fourth, Mr. Gooderham had responsibilities specifically related to the dispute. He coordinated and circulated a design-issues tracker involving kW, AECOM, and Iron Mountain and proposed a senior engineering workshop to address pressing issues. Fifth, for the same reasons supporting the second factor, the court found that he could be expected to identify with the corporation’s interests.
Balancing the factors, the court held that Mr. Gooderham was a managing agent and could be noticed for a deposition under Rule 30(b)(1).
Discovery and Expert Schedule
The court adopted the following expert deadlines:
- Iron Mountain’s expert report: October 22,
- - WSP’s expert report: December 21,
- - AECOM and TTSP’s expert reports: February 19,
- - Rebuttal expert reports: no later than March 21,
- - Completion of all expert discovery: no later than March 28, 2025.
The court also adopted the parties’ agreed deadlines in their proposed case-management plan. Fact discovery was due to finish by October 8, 2024; the parties’ joint status letter was due by October 24, 2024; alternative dispute resolution was to occur within 30 days after expert discovery closed; and pre-motion conferences could be held for anticipated dispositive motions. TTSP and AECOM also requested a pre-motion conference concerning anticipated jurisdictional motions after fact discovery ended.
The court endorsed the parties’ agreement that, without the court’s permission, they could not serve new discovery requests. The Clerk was respectfully requested to close Docket No. 121.
Disposition
The order determined that Mr. Gooderham could be deposed as a managing agent, adopted the stated expert and case-management deadlines, endorsed the restriction on new discovery requests, and requested closure of Docket No. 121. It did not decide the underlying merits of the parties’ claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.