New Eng. Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First Databank, Inc.

New Eng. Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First Databank, Inc.

Opinion

 [*165]  MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT McKESSON TO MAKE ITS 30(b)(6) WITNESS AVAILABLE AND PRODUCE IMS DATA (# 185)

COLLINGS, U.S.M.J.

The duly-noticed hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion to Compel McKesson [Corporation] ¹ to Make its 30(b)(6) Witness Available and Produce IMS Data (# 185) was scheduled  [**3] to occur at 11:30 A.M. on April 6, 2007 in Boston before the undersigned. Counsel for McKesson appeared, having traveled from San Francisco. No counsel appeared for plaintiffs at the appointed hour. The Clerk was able to contact local counsel who, in turn, contacted counsel in Seattle. The explanation for not appearing was a communication mix-up among the various lawyers representing plaintiffs. Finally, the Clerk was able to reach Barbara Mahoney, Esquire, one of plaintiffs' attorneys, in Seattle who asked to argue the motion telephonically. McKesson's counsel graciously agreed.

The only contested issues regarding the motion which remain outstanding is whether McKesson should be required to produce a 30(b)(6) deponent ² and  [**4] whether costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, should be awarded to either the plaintiffs or McKesson. McKesson argues that it has provided the information sought by the 30(b) (6) deposition notice in the form of documents and would produce in response to interrogatories information which plaintiffs now assert they need which McKesson claims was not set forth in the notice. Plaintiffs' counsel presses the need for a 30(b)(6) deposition.

Without saying so explicitly, McKesson is seeking a protective order preventing the 30(b) (6) deposition from taking place on the ground that "…the discovery is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, [and] is obtainable from some other source which is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive." Rule 26(b)(2)(C), Fed. R. Civ. P. Be that as it may, ] it is totally improper for a party to decide on its own not to permit discovery on these grounds. The Rule is explicit, viz., "the court" may "limit" the "frequency or extent of use of…discovery methods permitted under [the] rules…". There is nothing which permits a party to do so unilaterally.

With respect to depositions, ] there is no question  [**5] but that one party may take a 30(b)(6) deposition of a corporation or other entity which is the opposing party in a case. Rule 30(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. ³ If the party receiving the notice believes that the notice is improper for some reason, that party does not have the right to refuse to obey the deposition notice on any ground.

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