Rodriguez v. Seabreeze JetLev, LLC

Background

This discovery order addressed whether Rochelle Nicole Rodriguez, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Jamal Marquez Jordan, could take Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of Seabreeze JetLev LLC, Seabreeze Jet Ski LLC, and H2O Sports Hawaii LLC.

Rodriguez served the deposition notice on March 15, 2022. The notice stated that the depositions would begin on March 30, 2022, while the discovery cutoff then was April 1, 2022. Rodriguez’s counsel said the depositions would be conducted remotely and completed in one seven-hour session, and said that reasonable scheduling changes could be accommodated. Counsel also stated that all three depositions might not be needed because one defendant might not be involved at all.

The defendants refused to produce the witnesses, arguing that the notice was untimely. They also asserted burdens involving witness preparation, expedited transcripts before the April 26, 2022 deadline for Daubert motions, and possible effects on expert reports. The parties’ meet-and-confer process was interrupted when Rodriguez’s counsel contracted COVID-19. The trial court later extended the discovery cutoff to April 22, 2022, but the parties agreed that the extension would not be used to support or oppose the timeliness dispute, and the court did not rely on it.

Analysis

The court held that no fixed rule establishes the deadline for noticing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Instead, the reasonableness of the notice must be evaluated in light of the circumstances of the particular case.

The court recognized that Rodriguez’s timing was not best practice. But it found that Rodriguez apparently discussed the depositions with defense counsel as early as January 31, 2022, and indicated that they would occur after the depositions of Kai Kinoshita and Sean Neal. Those depositions occurred on February 25 and March 4, respectively, and Rodriguez served the deposition notice about ten days after Neal’s deposition. The court also noted that the depositions were to occur by teleconference, so any need for defense counsel to travel long distances appeared to be self-imposed.

The court acknowledged the defendants’ need to prepare witnesses and the possible effects on expert reports and Daubert motions. It balanced those concerns against the preference for a fair development of the factual record and concluded that the circumstances favored permitting the depositions.

Disposition

The court granted Rodriguez’s request to compel the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. The grant was subject to concessions made by Rodriguez’s counsel at the April 14, 2022 hearing: the three depositions together were limited to seven hours on the record, had to be completed in one day, and could not be cited by either party in expert reports. The parties were directed to meet and confer about a deposition date. Any request to modify the operative scheduling order was to be directed to the trial judge.

The order was signed by LAUREL BEELER, United States Magistrate Judge.