Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods., LP v. NCR Corp.

Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods., LP v. NCR Corp.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP's (Georgia-Pacific) Motion for a Protective Order to prevent defendant NCR Corporation (NCR) from taking Rule 30(b)(6) depositions pursuant to notices served by NCR on October 22, 2014 and November 6, 2014, as amended (docket no. 646). Also pending before the Court is NCR's Motion to Compel Designation of a Rule 30(b)(6) Deponent from another defendant, International Paper (IP), pursuant to notice served October [*6]  22, 2014 (docket no. 649). Remarkably, in light of the vast amount of material each deposition noticed on October 22, 2014, was to cover (as will be discussed, infra), these depositions were both scheduled to be taken the same day, November 13, 2014, the last day before discovery was to be completed. Since both motions pertain to similar 30(b)(6) notices served by NCR on Georgia-Pacific and IP, the two motions will be considered in tandem as to the October 22, 2014 notices.

The remaining deposition was noticed for the following day, November 14, 2014, and is also discussed herein.

OCTOBER 22, 2014 NOTICES

The 30(b)(6) Particularity Requirement

When a party names as the deponent in its notice a corporation, it "must be describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination." Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). Rule 30(b)(6) allows a party to notice the deposition of a corporation or other entity and to specify the areas of inquiry. The named organization must then designate one or more representatives to testify as to the areas of inquiry. In doing so, they testify on behalf of the corporation or entity. The requirement of "reasonable particularity" found in Rule 30 has been construed to mean that the areas of inquiry must be designated [*7]  with "painstaking specificity" in order that Rule 30(b)(6) function effectively. McBride v. Medicalodges, Inc., 250 FRD 581, 584 (D. Kan. 2008). Use of the term, for example, "including but not limited to" has been held to render deposition topics over broad. See, Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. U.S., 226 FRD 118, 125 (D.D.C. 2005).

Here, both objecting parties have argued that NCR's 30(b)(6) notice is over broad (Georgia-Pacific's Brief, docket no. 647, ID #16725; IP's Brief, docket no. 677, ID#18443). "An overly broad Rule 30(b)(6) notice may subject the noticed party to an impossible task." McBride, supra, at 584 (citations omitted). For example, IP was directed to designate a representative to testify about all of its answers to interrogatories served in Phase II by NCR; about all of the answers it provided to interrogatories served in Phase II by Georgia-Pacific; about all of the answers it provided to interrogatories served in Phase II by Weyerhaeuser Company (subsequently withdrawn); about all documents it produced in response to any party's request for production of documents; about the reason that it denied any requests to admit served upon it by any party; about the direct or the indirect acquisition, construction, maintenance or operation of any mill; and the acquisition, construction, maintenance or operation, either direct or indirect, of any sludge pond, [*8]  lagoon, landfill or impoundment at the Site or to which Residuals are released. The designated representative was also to be prepared to testify about mediation questionnaire responses, as well as the Section 104(e) Responses to the EPA requests for information. Docket No. 677, ID #18458.

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