Clauss Constr. v. UChicago Argonne LLC

Clauss Constr. v. UChicago Argonne LLC

Opinion

ORDER

Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Clauss's Rule 30(b)(6) Topics [67] as supplemented by Defendant's Supplemental Motion for a Protective Order [70] is granted in part and denied in part. This case is set for a status hearing on 1/28/15 at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of resetting a discovery close date. See Statement below for details.

STATEMENT

On October 27, 2014, Defendant UChicago Argonne, LLC ("Argonne") filed a Motion [*2]  for a Protective Order (ECF 67] concerning a draft notice for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition tendered by Plaintiff Clauss Construction ("Clauss") on September 25, 2014, [ECF 67 at 1] Moving for a protective order against a draft Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice is, of course, highly irregular. But Argonne says it was frustrated because Clauss had not responded to its objections to Clauss's draft notice and the proposed date for the deposition was fast approaching.¹ [ECF 67 at 2]

In response to Argonne's premature motion for protective order, Clauss served a revised Rule 30(b)(6) notice on October 28, 2014, one day after Argonne had filed its original motion [ECF 70-1] Argonne then filed a supplemental motion for protective order attacking Clauss's revised Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics as being essentially no different than the original, objectionable topics, [ECF 70] As it happens, Clauss actually did some work on the topics in response to Argonne's objections served back in September. The Court set a briefing schedule on Argonne's original motion on October 31, 2014 [ECF 69], and it ordered the parties to brief the supplemental motion on the same schedule [ECF 72].

To the extent the Court stated in its order entered on October 31, 2014, that the supplemental motion was granted [id.] , that was an error; the Court simply meant to indicate that it was accepting the supplemental motion in place of the original motion and to order the parties to brief that motion rather than the initial motion. Since both parties now have briefed the propriety of Clauss's revised Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics, the Court deals with those topics below as if they were raised in the original motion which [*4]  is the only motion that still is open on the CM/ECF system.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.