Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneydepositiondiscoverymotionobjectioncivil procedure
depositiondiscoverymotionobjectioncivil procedure

Related Cases

Rubio v. BNSF Railway Co., 548 F.Supp.2d 1220
View Case »
The Florida Bar v. Doe, 550 So.2d 1111, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 490
View Case »
Hass v. Oregon State Bar, 883 F.2d 1453, 58 USLW 2166, 1989-2 Trade Cases P 68,732
View Case »
In re Application for Disciplinary Action Against Chinquist, 714 N.W.2d 469, 2006 ND 107
View Case »
Jacobson v. Knepper & Moga, P.C., 185 Ill.2d 372, 706 N.E.2d 491, 235 Ill.Dec. 936, 78 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1160, 137 Lab.Cas. P 58,562, 14 IER Cases 1160
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Murphy v. Kmart Corp., 255 F.R.D. 497

Facts

The employee, Mr. Murphy, served Kmart with a notice of intent to depose a corporate designee, Jerry Rudrude, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Kmart objected to the designation and the subjects of examination, claiming they were overly broad and irrelevant. After several communications, Mr. Murphy filed an amended notice, which Kmart again objected to, leading to Kmart's motion for a protective order to quash the deposition notice.

The employee, Mr. Murphy, served Kmart with a notice of intent to depose a corporate designee, Jerry Rudrude, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Kmart objected to the designation and the subjects of examination, claiming they were overly broad and irrelevant.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether Kmart's objections to the deposition notice were valid and whether the employee was entitled to the requested discovery.

The main legal issues were whether Kmart's objections to the deposition notice were valid and whether the employee was entitled to the requested discovery.

Rule

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) regarding the scope of discovery, which allows parties to obtain discovery of any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party's claim or defense, and Rule 30(b)(6) governing depositions of organizational entities.

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) regarding the scope of discovery, which allows parties to obtain discovery of any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party's claim or defense, and Rule 30(b)(6) governing depositions of organizational entities.

Analysis

The court found that Mr. Murphy's amended notice of deposition did not meet the 'reasonable specificity' standard required by Rule 30(b)(6), as it sought extensive information about Kmart's corporate history that could be irrelevant to the claims. However, the court also recognized the unique function of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and allowed for some inquiries into relevant corporate history while requiring Mr. Murphy to narrow his requests.

The court found that Mr. Murphy's amended notice of deposition did not meet the 'reasonable specificity' standard required by Rule 30(b)(6), as it sought extensive information about Kmart's corporate history that could be irrelevant to the claims.

Conclusion

The court granted Kmart's motion for a protective order in part, allowing the employee to inquire into relevant history while requiring an amended notice to clarify the scope of the deposition. Kmart's request for attorney fees was denied.

The court granted Kmart's motion for a protective order in part, allowing the employee to inquire into relevant history while requiring an amended notice to clarify the scope of the deposition.

Who won?

The court partially favored Kmart by granting a protective order regarding its profit and loss statements, while also allowing the employee some discovery rights, indicating a balanced outcome.

The court partially favored Kmart by granting a protective order regarding its profit and loss statements, while also allowing the employee some discovery rights, indicating a balanced outcome.

You must be