Morrison v. Scotia Capital Inc.

Background

The parties raised several disputes about anticipated depositions and asked for a court conference. The court decided that a conference was unnecessary and resolved the issues based on the parties’ written submissions. The opinion addressed three matters: the length of Emily Morrison’s deposition, Morrison’s notice seeking to depose Brian Porter, and the scheduling of eight other depositions.

Morrison’s Deposition

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1) generally limits a deposition to seven hours. Additional time may be allowed when needed for a fair examination or when the examination is delayed or impeded. Scotia Capital argued that 14 hours were necessary because of the length of Morrison’s complaint, the period covered by her claims and employment, the company’s lack of familiarity with certain facts, and her answers to written questions.

The court found the request for 14 hours premature. It stated that Scotia Capital might be able to examine Morrison adequately within seven hours, and probably in less than 14 hours, if counsel asked focused and non-repetitive questions and the parties avoided improper delays. The court expected Morrison to cooperate if additional time proved necessary. If the parties could not agree, Scotia Capital could apply to continue the deposition. The court therefore denied without prejudice Scotia Capital’s motion to extend Morrison’s deposition time.

Brian Porter’s Deposition

Morrison sought to depose Brian Porter, the former chief executive officer of the Bank of Nova Scotia, which the opinion identifies as Scotia Capital’s parent company. Porter served as chief executive officer from November 1, 2013, through January 31, 2023, and previously served as the Bank’s chief risk officer. He did not supervise Morrison or the operations of the New Orleans office where she worked.

Morrison asserted that Porter’s testimony could be relevant to her allegation that the Bank treated women differently, including because she said Porter interacted mainly with male employees during office visits. She also said he had knowledge about the closure of the New Orleans office and certain Bank policies. Porter stated that he did not recall meeting Morrison or knowing about her employment, was not involved in selecting content or recipients connected with a photography award, and had no role in selecting the award’s winner.

The court applied the proportionality requirements governing discovery and the protection against cumulative or burdensome discovery. It also discussed the “apex doctrine,” which can protect senior corporate executives from depositions when they lack unique personal knowledge and other witnesses can provide the requested information. Because Porter had limited knowledge of Morrison and other witnesses could provide the information she sought, the court found that his deposition was not proportional to the needs of the case and would be unnecessarily cumulative and burdensome. The court therefore granted Scotia Capital’s motion concerning Porter’s deposition.

Deposition Schedule and Disposition

Morrison asked the court to set dates for eight depositions because Scotia Capital had not yet confirmed dates for depositions she noticed for July. The court found that setting the dates was unnecessary because Scotia Capital appeared to agree to the depositions, other than Porter’s, and was working to arrange them. The court requested a letter within seven days listing mutually confirmed dates for the eight depositions.

The court encouraged the parties to meet and confer about similar issues in the future and requested termination of the motions at Docket Nos. 96, 101, and 102. A case-management conference was set for June 27, 2024, at 11:00 a.m.