Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Murphy v. Kmart Corp.

Murphy v. Kmart Corp.

United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Western Division

January 27, 2009, Decided; January 27, 2009, Filed

CIV. 07-5080-KES

Opinion

 [*499]  ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[DOCKET 90]

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the court pursuant to defendant's motion for a protective order and for an order quashing plaintiff's amended notice of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. [Docket 90]. Defendant has represented to the court that it has made a good-faith effort to resolve this dispute without the court's intervention. See Docket 91. Defendant's motion was referred to this magistrate judge for resolution pursuant to Chief  [**2] Judge Karen E. Schreier's order dated November 3, 2008. [Docket 94].

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The court incorporates by reference the facts and procedural history set forth in the court's previous orders in this case, see Dockets 132 & 137, and, thus, will limit its recitation to those facts pertinent to the instant motion.

On September 12, 2008, Mr. Murphy served Kmart Corporation (hereinafter "Kmart") with notice of his intent to depose Jerry Rudrude pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), also listing the categories of information or "subjects of examination" that would be covered at the deposition. See Docket 92, Exh. 1. In response, Kmart contacted Mr. Murphy's counsel to state its objections to the designation of Jerry Rudrude as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness and to  [*500]  the subjects of examination listed in the deposition notice, arguing that the topics were overly broad, lacked the requisite specificity, and covered information not relevant to Mr. Murphy's claims. See Docket 92, Affidavit of Fitzke. Mr. Murphy's counsel agreed to consider Kmart's objections. See id.

On September 23, 2008, Mr. Murphy filed a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice that did not designate any specific  [**3] individual as the appropriate deponent. See Docket 47. In this filed notice, Mr. Murphy included additional subjects of examination and left the previously-listed categories unaltered. Id. Kmart again objected, on the same grounds cited above, to each subject of examination. See Docket 92, Exh. 2.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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

255 F.R.D. 497 *; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6081 **

DOUG MURPHY, Plaintiff, vs. KMART CORPORATION, Defendant.

Subsequent History: Motion granted by Murphy v. Kmart Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144251 (D.S.D., Feb. 18, 2009)

Motion granted by, Sanctions allowed by Murphy v. KMart Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49584 (D.S.D., June 9, 2009)

Prior History: Murphy v. Kmart Corp., 259 F.R.D. 421, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1705 (D.S.D., Jan. 9, 2009)

CORE TERMS

discovery, deposition, line of inquiry, store manager, punitive damages, designate, protective order, argues, entity, parties, corporate entity, employees, matters, deposition notice, burdensome, overbroad, subsidiary, deponent, cases, amended notice, good cause, disclosure, Holdings, defenses, notice, documents, policies, prepare, unduly, scope of discovery

Civil Procedure, Discovery & Disclosure, Discovery, Relevance of Discoverable Information, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Undue Burdens in Discovery, Protective Orders, Methods of Discovery, Depositions, Oral Depositions, General Overview, Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Title VII Discrimination, Disparate Treatment, Evidence, Damages, Types of Damages, Punitive Damages, Torts, Punitive Damages, Availability, Intentional Torts, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Elements, Misconduct During Discovery