Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
November 19, 2021, Decided; November 19, 2021, Filed
No. 20 C 2753
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the following reasons, the plaintiff's motion to compel GM to prepare and provide a witness for an additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition [Dkt. #171] is granted in part and denied in part.
The attorneys in this case have struggled with discovery and simply have not been capable of following the directives of local Rule 37.2. Plaintiff alone has filed six discovery motions totaling about 540 pages of briefs and exhibits [Dkt. ##68, 99, 110, 101, 111, 112, 113, [*2] 114, 115, 116, 150, 151, 152,171, 172, 173], all in a case about car hoods and grilles that plaintiff once characterized as simple enough that it did not even have to comply with its obligation to perform an ESI search. It is very likely that the case could have been litigated in a much more simple and efficient fashion but the attorneys on both sides have chose more of a scorched earth strategy. That's a strategy that has become more and more common, for some reason. And so, here we are again.
One could not, without a trial and testimony from all the attorneys involved, get through to what has actually gone on amongst the lawyers in discovery in this case. Accusations are made, back and forth, on each side, through nearly 500 pages of filings. [Dkt. ## 171-173, 175-179, 182-185]. As is common in cases that have gone off the rails, each side has a diametrically opposed view of which law firm is made up of heroes and which is made up of villains. All the court can do at this point, is make a decision within the extremely broad discretion it has, Jones v. City of Elkhart, Ind., 737 F.3d 1107, 1115 (7th Cir. 2013), with a visceral feel regarding the history the attorneys are fighting about.
On October 21st, with just five weeks left in discovery, the plaintiff [*3] served its fifth Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, demanding that GM prepare a witness to testify about five dozen or so topics and subtopics in five business days. That might sound a bit unreasonable but describing it does not do it justice. Here is what the plaintiff expected GM's witness to prepare to cover in those five days, all with about a month left in discovery, which ought to have concluded on October 1st [Dkt. #153]:
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224287 *; 2021 WL 5415152
LKQ CORPORATION and KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
Prior History: LKQ Corp. v. GM Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171094 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 9, 2021)
manufacture, grille, documents, vendors, destroyed, discovery, deposition, consumers, employees, requests, designs, pricing, retention, sourcing, notice, bezel, bid, responses, communications, circumstances, stored, team, responded, destruction, Quotation, subtopics, policies, prepare, clinicals