Pedraza v. Manhattan Monster Inc.

Background

Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a letter seeking discovery-related relief. The letter concerned three areas: a third deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which requires an organization to designate a witness prepared to testify about specified topics; the defendants’ search for responsive documents; and depositions of two employees of Manhattan Monster Inc.

The plaintiff said that, during a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, the designated witness could not answer questions about who handled the defendants’ responses to document requests or what searches had been performed for materials such as text messages and emails. The plaintiff also said the witness had not reviewed the defendants’ discovery responses and disagreed with some answers to requests for admissions. The plaintiff reported receiving four text messages and no emails.

The plaintiff also asserted that two employees who had relevant information were disclosed too late for depositions before the discovery deadline. The letter requested orders requiring those depositions and, if the defendants refused, preventing the employees from testifying. It also requested fees related to the second deposition and a possible third deposition. The plaintiff stated that it was not seeking sanctions.

Court’s Action

After conferring with the Magistrate Judge’s chambers, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil extended the discovery deadline by 30 days, but only for the depositions of the two late-disclosed witnesses. The new discovery deadline is March 25, 2024. The deadline for the parties’ joint letter and any pre-motion submissions described in an earlier order was extended to March 27, 2024.

The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the requests for a third Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, discovery-related fees, additional document-search relief, or witness preclusion.