Julian v. MetLife, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs filed a letter-motion seeking an order compelling Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) to produce a representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) to testify about MetLife’s electronically stored information (ESI). The parties later resolved portions of the dispute. MetLife agreed to produce one or more witnesses concerning four ESI systems: Unified Inforce System Systems (UIS), Disability Process Automation (DPA), Unified Disability Systems (UDS), and Intellis.

The remaining disputes concerned whether MetLife could designate two or three people to testify separately about each system and whether each person would count toward the presumptive ten-deposition limit or whether all of the Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses would count as one deposition. The parties also requested extensions of the deadlines for pre-certification class discovery and class-certification briefing.

Order

The court ordered the following:

- The plaintiffs had already provided written follow-up questions about the UDS, UIS, and DPA systems. The court required them to provide a comparable list of questions about Intellis by May 22, 2020. - By May 29, 2020, MetLife had to designate “one or more” people to testify about the four ESI systems. The court declined to require one person to be fully prepared to testify about every system, including each system’s technical aspects and how class members interact with it. The court nevertheless encouraged MetLife to use as few designees as reasonably practicable and explained that the designees need not have personal knowledge of every topic, but must educate themselves about matters known or reasonably available to MetLife. - The parties were directed to make their best efforts to schedule all testimony about the four systems during May and June 2020, with the depositions conducted remotely. - For planning purposes, the parties were told to assume that the testimony about MetLife’s ESI systems would count as one deposition toward the presumptive ten-deposition limit. The court stated that it would apply a reasonableness analysis and consider the factors in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) if the parties later disputed whether more than ten depositions should be allowed. - The court extended the deadlines: pre-certification class discovery would close on July 29, 2020; the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion would be due August 28, 2020; MetLife’s opposition would be due September 28, 2020; and the plaintiffs’ reply would be due October 26, 2020.

Effect

This was a discovery and case-management order. It set procedures for Rule 30(b)(6) testimony, addressed how that testimony would be counted for deposition-limit purposes, and revised the class-certification schedule. It did not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or decide whether a class should be certified.