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

depositionhearingmotiondiscriminationharassmentcivil procedure

depositiondiscoverytestimonymotioncivil procedure

Related Cases

United States v. Nolen, Slip Copy, 2024 WL 4307772

Facts

The United States filed an amended complaint against Joel Nolen and his wife Shirlee Nolen, alleging discrimination and sexual harassment against female tenants at properties they owned or managed. The Nolens denied any wrongdoing and sought to depose a representative of the United States regarding the allegations. The United States filed a motion for a protective order, arguing that the deposition topics were overly broad and sought information protected by work product doctrine.

The United States argues the Nolens should be precluded from conducting a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a representative of the United States because (1) the topics seek testimony covered by work product protections; (2) a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is an inappropriate discovery tool for the information sought; (3) the timing of the notice and deposition so close to the discovery deadline is unreasonable; and (4) the noticed topics are overbroad.

Issue

Whether the United States should be compelled to comply with the Nolens' notice for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition given the claims of overbreadth and undue burden.

Rule

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows the court to issue protective orders to prevent annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden, while Rule 30(b)(6) requires that deposition notices be specific enough to allow the organization to prepare a representative.

The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.

Analysis

The court analyzed the deposition notice and found it to be overbroad and unduly burdensome, as it encompassed all allegations of sexual harassment by Mr. Nolen without the necessary specificity. The court noted that the Nolens had other means to obtain the information they sought, such as deposing the aggrieved persons directly, which made the Rule 30(b)(6) notice disproportionate to the needs of the case.

The Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, considering the parties’ relative access to the information sought and other available, more appropriate discovery tools.

Conclusion

The court granted the United States' motion for a protective order, forbidding the Nolens from conducting the noticed deposition under Rule 30(b)(6). The scheduled hearing for October 23, 2024, was also vacated.

The court forbids the Nolens’ noticed deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in this case as the court granted its motion for a protective order, determining that the Nolens' deposition notice was overly broad and created an undue burden.

The United States’ motion for a protective order (ECF No. 70) is granted.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Urban v. Tularosa, 161 F.3d 19 (Table), 1998 WL 694465, 98 CJ C.A.R. 5232

Douglas v. California, 373 U.S. 905, 83 S.Ct. 1288, 10 L.Ed.2d 200

Board of Overseers of Bar v. Warren, 34 A.3d 1103, 2011 ME 124

Zimmer Paper Products, Inc. v. Berger & Montague, P.C., 758 F.2d 86, 53 USLW 2481, 1985-1 Trade Cases P 66,531, 1 Fed.R.Serv.3d 454

United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2014 WL 11460503