Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company
- John Docherty
- 0:22-cv-02173
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Rouse v. H.B. Fuller, Judge Docherty struck Topic 1 from a corporate deposition notice because it was procedurally improper and overbroad.
The plaintiffs and defendants were affected by the ruling on the scope and scheduling of the corporate-representative deposition.
What was alleged
The complaint alleges that the defendants' TEC Power Grout product is defective and fails to perform as advertised. Specifically, it claims the product does not harden properly, cracks, crumbles, and disintegrates when wet, contrary to defendants' representations that it is crack-resistant, never needs sealing, and performs well in wet and high-traffic conditions. The complaint alleges claims including breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of various consumer protection statutes. It further alleges that defendants' warranty improperly limits consumer remedies to the cost of the product itself, even though product failure damages a much more expensive integrated tile installation.
What happened
Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company involved a dispute over Topic 1 in the plaintiffs’ notice for a deposition of a corporate representative. The topic sought testimony about the factual bases for the defendants’ answers to several interrogatories and requests for admission.
The parties had disputed the topic since at least September 2024, delaying the deposition and the end of fact discovery. The plaintiffs argued that the issue had become moot after the Court struck one interrogatory. The defendants disagreed and maintained that Topic 1 was too broad.
Judge John F. Docherty ordered that Topic 1 be removed from the deposition notice and that the parties promptly schedule and conduct the deposition. He gave two reasons: the plaintiffs’ supplemental filing did not follow an earlier court instruction, and Topic 1 was overly broad and insufficiently specific.
The detailed version
- Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company · No. 0:22-cv-02173
- John F. Docherty
- Feb. 3, 2025
Background
The Court addressed the parties’ continuing disagreement about the first topic in Plaintiffs’ Notice of Corporate Representative Deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). A Rule 30(b)(6) deposition allows a party to question an organization through a representative designated to testify about specified topics.
Topic 1 sought testimony about “the factual bases” for the defendants’ responses to several interrogatories and for any response to a request for admission that was not an unqualified admission. The dispute had continued since at least September 2024 and had delayed the deposition and the close of fact discovery.
The plaintiffs told the Court that Topic 1 was moot because the Court had struck Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 27. The defendants disagreed and argued that striking the interrogatory did not change their position that Topic 1 was overly broad.
Court’s Analysis
The Court struck Topic 1 for two reasons.
First, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ supplemental response was procedurally improper. At a January 2025 case-management conference, the Court had directed the plaintiffs to file a list of authorities from the District of Minnesota or the Eighth Circuit that conflicted with the holding in Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc. The Court stated that it wanted only the requested authorities and no additional argument.
The plaintiffs did not provide case law conflicting with Inline Packaging. Instead, they argued that the issue was moot. The Court treated that change in position as an implicit admission that the plaintiffs had found no conflicting authority and applied Inline Packaging.
Second, applying Inline Packaging, the Court found Topic 1 overbroad and insufficiently particularized because it sought the factual bases for a wide range of responses to other discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for admission.
Order
The Court ordered that Topic 1 be stricken from the Rule 30(b)(6) notice. It also ordered the parties to proceed promptly with scheduling and conducting the corporate-representative deposition. This order concerned discovery and did not decide the underlying merits of the parties’ claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.