Canton v. U.S. Foods, Inc.

Background

Brian Canton alleged that U.S. Foods promoted less-qualified White employees over Black employees and retaliated after he complained to upper management and human resources. He alleged that the company denied him a promotion and constructively terminated him. The order addressed a discovery dispute about Canton’s requested depositions; it did not decide the underlying discrimination or retaliation claims.

Depositions Within the Ten-Deposition Limit

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 generally permits a party to take ten depositions without the other parties’ consent or court permission. A deposition of a corporation or other business entity under Rule 30(b)(6) counts as one deposition even if the entity designates multiple people to testify.

Canton’s earlier deposition notice covered two topics involving U.S. Foods’ EEO-1 reports and affirmative-action data. Because the record did not show that Canton issued a second notice, the court treated the related company-representative deposition as one deposition rather than two. The court concluded that Canton therefore had another deposition available without seeking permission under Rule 30.

Canton wanted to depose Jesus Lopez, whom the record described as having knowledge of U.S. Foods’ workplace culture and Canton’s promotion opportunities. To the extent U.S. Foods objected that Lopez’s testimony was irrelevant under Rule 26(b)(1), the court overruled that objection.

Requests for Four Additional Depositions

Canton requested permission to exceed the ten-deposition limit by taking four additional depositions: Brian Pinks, Chris Salinas, Irving Navarro, and Phil Collins. The court explained that a party seeking additional depositions must make a particularized showing of need and that courts may deny depositions that are cumulative, lack a proper purpose, or impose an unreasonable burden or expense.

Brian Pinks. Pinks had direct knowledge of the circumstances leading to the warehouse-manager promotion decision that Canton challenged. The court found the proposed testimony relevant and found no showing that producing Pinks would be burdensome, cumulative, or disproportionate. The court granted Canton’s request for permission to depose Pinks.

Chris Salinas and Irving Navarro. Salinas and Navarro had information about U.S. Foods’ workplace culture. Canton identified them as comparators and as having knowledge of the company’s organizational culture during the relevant period. Both had filed workplace complaints, although Salinas’s complaint dated to the early 2000s. The court found that the discovery on workplace culture had been limited, that their testimony would not be unreasonably cumulative, and that Canton had shown a particularized need. The court granted Canton’s request for permission to depose Salinas and Navarro.

Phil Collins. Collins had been retired since 2016. The court found that his employment was too separated from the promotion decision and the workplace culture at the relevant time. The court denied Canton’s request for permission to depose Collins.

Disposition

The court granted Canton’s request for leave to conduct four additional depositions, but specified that Canton’s request to depose Brian Pinks, Chris Salinas, and Irving Navarro was granted and his request to depose Phil Collins was denied. The opinion is signed by a United States magistrate judge, but the judge’s name is not clearly readable in the provided text.