AT&T Enterprises, LLC v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc.

Background

AT&T moved under the federal discovery rules to obtain three forms of relief from Atos: an answer to Interrogatory No. 21, a deposition of Loek van Stekelenburg in New York or Dallas (or exclusion of his testimony if Atos did not produce him), and separation agreements for two former employees, Chris Wick and Jayesh Maroo. Atos separately sought a protective order requiring van Stekelenburg’s deposition to take place in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Interrogatory No. 21

The interrogatory asked Atos to identify documents and communications that Atos claimed showed van Stekelenburg had changed or revised his March 16, 2021 statement about the amount to be spent during a contract extension. Atos objected that the interrogatory was a contention interrogatory—that is, a request asking a party to explain or support its legal position—and that it was premature under Local Civil Rule 33.3.

The court agreed. It concluded that the interrogatory sought to test Atos’s argument rather than obtain information unavailable through other discovery. Because discovery had not yet concluded, the court denied AT&T’s request to compel an answer.

Van Stekelenburg’s Deposition

AT&T argued that van Stekelenburg was Atos’s managing agent and could therefore be required to appear for a deposition by notice. Atos argued that he worked for Atos Netherlands BV, a separate subsidiary of Atos’s parent company, and was a non-party witness who should be deposed in Amsterdam or virtually.

The court applied a fact-specific test considering van Stekelenburg’s authority, responsibilities, relationship to the disputed contract provision, ability to provide testimony at the employer’s request, and alignment with Atos’s interests. The court found that AT&T had shown at least a close question about whether he was Atos’s managing agent. The court also noted evidence that Atos had identified him as an Atos employee, referred to him in court filings as an Atos employee, used his Atos email address, and identified him as knowledgeable about the disputed contract provision.

The court held that Dallas was the presumptively appropriate location because it was Atos’s headquarters. It found that neither side had shown that cost, convenience, or efficient handling of the case favored another location. The court granted AT&T’s motion to compel the deposition in Dallas and denied Atos’s motion for a protective order requiring the deposition to occur in Amsterdam.

Separation Agreements

AT&T sought the separation agreements of Wick and Maroo, arguing that they were relevant to the former employees’ credibility and whether they continued to receive compensation from Atos. The court noted that AT&T had not identified a document request seeking those agreements. Because a motion to compel under Rule 37(a) requires a prior document request under Rule 34, the court denied this part of AT&T’s motion.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered that AT&T’s letter motion for a discovery order was granted in part and denied in part. Atos’s motion for a protective order was denied. The Clerk of Court was asked to close Docket Nos. 114 and 118.

The opinion’s caption lists the plaintiff as AT&T Corp., while the opening paragraph identifies the plaintiff as AT&T Enterprises, LLC; this summary follows the supplied case name and the opening paragraph.