Kahle v. Cargill, Inc.

Background

Philip von Kahle, acting as assignee for the benefit of the creditors of Coex Coffee International, Inc., brought state-law claims against Cargill, Inc. The claims seek to avoid three limited guarantees and to avoid and recover more than $91.5 million in transfers from Coex Coffee International to Cargill.

The pending motion concerned discovery, the pretrial process in which parties obtain information and testimony. The parties had agreed that each side could take up to 12 depositions. Kahle had taken or scheduled 12 depositions and asked for permission to take two more: a fact deposition of former Cargill employee Erik Arntzen and a deposition of Cargill under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows a corporation to designate one or more representatives to testify about specified topics.

Legal standards

Rule 30 generally sets a presumptive limit of 10 depositions per side, unless the parties stipulate to more or the court grants permission. A court may allow additional depositions when they are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. In deciding proportionality, the court considers factors including the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ access to information and resources, the importance of the discovery, and whether its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit. The court must limit discovery that is cumulative, duplicative, obtainable from a more convenient source, sought after the requesting party had ample opportunity to obtain it, or outside the permitted scope.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the parties’ agreed limit of 12 depositions already exceeded the presumptive limit. After reviewing the parties’ submissions and the case record, it concluded that granting two additional depositions was not proportional to the needs of the case. Kahle could take the Arntzen deposition, the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, or both only by choosing which currently scheduled depositions to forgo so that the total remained at 12.

The court also explained that, if Kahle chose a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Cargill would have to provide a witness or witnesses able to give complete, knowledgeable, and binding answers about the noticed topics. Cargill would have to prepare its designee or designees using reasonably available information, including information from documents, former employees, or other sources. The parties were required to meet and confer about topics that were relevant and proportional. If they could not agree after good-faith negotiations, they had to file a joint letter stating their positions by December 1, 2023. Any Rule 30(b)(6) deposition had to be completed by the January 23, 2024 fact-discovery deadline.

Disposition

The court denied Kahle’s letter motion for leave to take 14 depositions. Judge Stewart D. Aaron did not rule on the underlying state-law claims in this discovery order.