Amons v. Pittsburg City of

Background

The Plaintiffs sought to compel depositions of the Defendants’ persons most knowledgeable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). A Rule 30(b)(6) deposition allows a party to question an organization through witnesses prepared to testify about specified topics. The Plaintiffs noticed depositions covering seven topics on February 6, 2020, for February 14, 2020. The opinion states that the notice was made eight days before the scheduled depositions and that the fact-discovery deadline was February 14.

The Defendants objected that the notice was too broad and provided insufficient time to identify and prepare the witnesses. They also argued that the notice was untimely and unreasonable. The Plaintiffs argued that eight days was reasonable, citing decisions in which five days’ notice had been found reasonable when document production was not required.

Discovery-letter procedure

The Plaintiffs filed their discovery letter on February 21, 2020, seeking to compel the depositions. The court stated that the filing was unilateral and violated the judge’s standing order requiring joint discovery letters. The Plaintiffs acknowledged that they waited until 3:30 p.m. on the last day for filing a joint letter to ask the Defendants to participate. The Defendants responded with their own discovery letter on February 28, 2020.

The court stated that the Plaintiffs had enough time to notice the depositions before the fact-discovery deadline but chose not to do so. It also noted that the Plaintiffs had not obtained training and personnel records before the depositions, even though those records could have been used to refresh witnesses’ recollections.

Court’s analysis

The court considered whether the notice period was reasonable under Rule 30(b)(1), which requires reasonable written notice of an oral deposition. It found the Plaintiffs’ cited decisions unpersuasive and factually different. The court also relied on a decision finding seven days insufficient for a city to prepare for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, explaining that identifying and preparing a municipal witness is more difficult and reasonably requires more notice.

The Plaintiffs also argued that the Defendants should be compelled to produce witnesses because the Plaintiffs had agreed to schedule their own depositions after the fact-discovery deadline. The court rejected that argument, stating that the Plaintiffs’ depositions had originally been noticed timely by the Defendants and were later scheduled after the deadline because of scheduling conflicts. The court found that this scheduling agreement did not justify compelling the Defendants to produce Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses on short notice.

Disposition

The court denied the Plaintiffs’ request to compel the Defendants to comply with the February 6, 2020 deposition subpoena. The court therefore quashed the subpoena.