Lomboy v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

Background

Ron Lomboy asserts employment-related claims against Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. He says Wells Fargo wrongfully terminated his employment and failed to accommodate his disability. Wells Fargo contends that it fired Lomboy for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, including his alleged violation of Wells Fargo policies when he opened an account for a minor and alleged false statements about that conduct.

The order concerns discovery, the pretrial process in which parties obtain information and testimony from one another. Lomboy asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) to take more than the ten depositions ordinarily allowed without court permission. The parties submitted a joint discovery letter, with Lomboy seeking thirty depositions and Wells Fargo arguing that he should be limited to ten.

Meet-and-Confer Requirement

The court noted that the parties had discussed the issue to some extent, but the record did not clearly show that they had meaningfully discussed it after Lomboy renewed his request. It also was not clear that they had met in person or by videoconference, as required by the court’s procedures. Their strongly opposing positions suggested that further negotiations were warranted.

The court therefore denied Lomboy’s request at that time, without prejudice to renewing it after the parties met and conferred in person or by videoconference in a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute.

Whether Lomboy Had to Use Ten Depositions First

Wells Fargo argued that Lomboy could not seek additional depositions until he had used all ten depositions allowed by Rule 30(a)(2). The court disagreed with that interpretation. It explained that Wells Fargo had relied on a decision that stated a party’s argument rather than the special master’s actual ruling. The actual ruling described exhaustion of the permitted depositions as something most courts ordinarily require, not an absolute condition in every case.

The court also discussed a decision from the Northern District of California stating that Rule 30(a)(2) generally contemplates that a party has taken at least some depositions before seeking permission for more. Lomboy had already taken at least some depositions, although the exact number was unclear. The parties’ letter stated that he had taken two depositions and had seven more scheduled, along with a possible deposition of the mother of the child for whom he opened an account.

Court’s Analysis

The court observed that the case was not a large, multi-party case but involved several distinct subjects for discovery. Those subjects could include Wells Fargo’s decision to terminate Lomboy, the truth of statements Wells Fargo says were untrue, the policies Lomboy allegedly violated and their normal application, Lomboy’s medical condition, Wells Fargo’s knowledge of his disability and need for accommodation, and any steps Wells Fargo took to accommodate him.

The court held only that Lomboy’s failure to complete all ten permitted depositions did not prevent him from renewing his request. It did not decide whether he would ultimately show that additional depositions were justified. The court cautioned that Lomboy could face a substantial burden if he sought additional depositions about subjects covered by depositions that were already planned but had not yet occurred.

Disposition and Next Steps

The court declined to require Lomboy to complete ten depositions before renewing his request and left the timing of any renewed request to his discretion. If the parties could not resolve the dispute after meeting in person or by videoconference, they were ordered to submit another joint letter consistent with the court’s standing order. The letter must include a chart identifying each witness and the relevance of that witness. It could also include evidence about whether a witness had relevant knowledge or would duplicate another witness’s testimony.

The court further stated that Lomboy should address what had changed since his earlier statement that he expected to take approximately six additional fact-witness depositions and since his later confirmation, according to Wells Fargo, that he would take only seven depositions. The order denied the request for additional depositions without prejudice.