Pittman v. Am. Airlines, Inc.

Pittman v. Am. Airlines, Inc.

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order, [Dkt. 55], is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for decision. The matter has been fully briefed, [Dkt. 55, 68, 77], and is ripe for decision.

Plaintiff has served a notice for a 30(b)(6) deposition on Defendant, seeking the designation of a corporate representative to testify on 20 numbered topics further defined by numerous subparts. [Dkt. 55-1]. Defendant objects to designating a corporate representative to testify for all but topic numbers 1 and 2 as those topics seek testimony regarding the factual bases for Defendant's Answer and affirmative defenses. Plaintiff has withdrawn topic numbers 13 and 18. For the remaining topics [*2]  Defendant seeks a protective order.

Shortly before the discovery deadline and after conducting five depositions of the individuals personally involved in the event giving rise to this case, Plaintiff served a 30(b)(6) notice on Defendant covering 20 topics. According to Plaintiff, the purpose of the 30(b)(6) notice is a "wrap-up for missing testimony at the conclusion of discovery." [Dkt. 68, p. 2 n.1]. However, many of the noticed topics are much broader than a wrap-up for missing testimony and are not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).

Background

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a building cleaner and her employment was subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). In April 2013, Defendant outsourced the building cleaner jobs, including Plaintiff's position. Defendant allowed Plaintiff (and others similarly situated) to bid into more skilled Maintenance Support Person (MSP) positions. Plaintiff bid into a Hazardous Waste MSP position. The CBA required an examination for those in MSP positions, taken at the 180 day mark (the 180-day test), to demonstrate the ability to perform the new job. Plaintiff failed the 180-day test.

The CBA provides that a person who fails a [*3]  180-day test is returned to their former position. An exception was negotiated for Plaintiff since the former position no longer existed. Upon signing a settlement agreement Plaintiff was moved to a position where she did not handle hazardous waste.

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