Trustees of the Local 854 Pension Fund v. Barrett

Background

This Employee Retirement Income Security Act case involved numerous discovery disputes. Discovery and general pretrial matters had been referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis. The plaintiffs’ motion to amend and the defendants’ motions to dismiss remained pending before Judge Rearden; this order did not decide those motions.

Organizational deposition of the pension fund

Defendant Ken Barrett noticed the Trustees of the Local 854 Pension Fund for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The plaintiffs argued that the trustees were individuals and that the Fund therefore could not be treated as an entity for this type of deposition.

The court rejected that categorical objection. It held that Rule 30(b)(6), which allows a party to name a corporation, partnership, association, governmental agency, or “other entity” as a deponent, encompasses a pension fund. The court also concluded that the rule’s purpose—requiring an organization to identify and prepare a knowledgeable representative rather than forcing the requesting party to depose people one by one—applies to pension funds.

A Rule 30(b)(6) witness testifies for the entity, not as an individual. The witness gives the entity’s position and information known or reasonably available to it, and the deposition notice must describe the subjects with reasonable particularity.

Rulings on deposition topics

The court ruled as follows:

- Topics (i), (vii)–(xii), and (xx) were overly broad because they sought individual people’s knowledge, including Ken Barrett’s knowledge, rather than the Fund’s position or information reasonably available to the Fund. The plaintiffs did not have to identify a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for those topics. - Topic (ii), seeking the plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses, was also overly broad and improper as a Rule 30(b)(6) topic. - Topics (iii), (iv), (xiii), and (xxiv) were described with sufficient particularity. The plaintiffs had to produce a witness to testify about facts alleged in specified paragraphs of the complaint, facts and evidence concerning guarantees by Advance Transit Co. Inc. to Defendant 745 Whittier, facts and evidence concerning the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against Ken Barrett, and the location and general contents of relevant books and records and their custodians. - Topics (xiv), (xv), and (xviii), concerning matters such as Advance Transit Co. Inc.’s records, transfers, and relationship with 745 Whittier, were more appropriately directed to those entities. The plaintiffs did not have to produce a witness on those topics. - Topic (xvi), concerning when Advance Transit Co. Inc. stopped having an obligation to contribute and when the plaintiffs learned of that cessation, was improper to the extent it sought “knowledge” and was better directed to Advance Transit. The plaintiffs did not have to produce a witness on that topic. - Topics (xvii), (xix), and (xxi), concerning the removal motions, prior breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, and whether Advance Transit withdrew from the Fund under an arrangement or agreement, were relevant to claims or defenses. The plaintiffs had to produce a witness on those topics. - Topics (xxii) and (xxiii), concerning the current operational status of the Local 854 Pension Fund and the Local 854 Health & Welfare Fund, were relevant to a standing defense. The plaintiffs had to provide that discovery even though the court questioned whether the standing argument was likely to succeed. - Topics (xxv) and (xxvi), concerning information systems, document-retention policies, and the steps taken to search for and produce documents, sought “discovery on discovery.” Because the defendants had not shown that responsive documents were withheld or destroyed, the plaintiffs did not have to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on those subjects.

Document production and damages

The plaintiffs had to produce documents in Bates-numbered format. They did not have to provide additional discovery about their discovery process. The court stated that relevant documents concerning the defendants’ standing argument had to be produced. It also explained that information about exactly when the trustees learned of Advance Transit’s finances and operations was not a proper Rule 30(b)(6) subject, but could be pursued through individual depositions under Rule 30(b)(1) and document discovery if responsive information existed.

The court held that the plaintiffs had to provide a computation of each category of damages claimed, along with the supporting materials required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).

The court also reasoned that subpoenas to the defendants’ accountants for tax returns would be duplicative because the defendants had already provided the returns and the plaintiffs had not identified a reason to doubt their accuracy. The opinion does not separately state a formal disposition of that subpoena dispute.

Remote depositions and stay of discovery

The defendants asked the court to require all parties to attend remote depositions from separate locations using their own teleconferencing equipment. The court denied that request, finding no strong reason to increase costs or require multiple locations.

Because the parties had agreed to extend discovery deadlines until the motion to amend and motions to dismiss were resolved, the court stayed all discovery. Within ten days after Judge Rearden’s ruling on those motions, the parties had to provide a status update and agreed-upon proposed deadlines for completing discovery. The clerk was asked to close Docket Nos. 95, 96, 97, and 113.