Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division
February 10, 2021, Decided; February 10, 2021, Filed
Case No. 20 CV 50109
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant's motion for a protective order concerning Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice  is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff Putco, Inc. filed suit against Defendant Carjamz Com Inc.1 on March 17, 2020, alleging infringement of two of its patents. Dkt. 1. The patents at issue are directed toward an LED lamp with a flexible heat sink primarily used in headlights for motor vehicles. Defendant filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses and a counterclaim for non-infringement and invalidity, among other things. Dkt. 32.
On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff served a notice of deposition of Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Dkt. 57-1. The deposition notice identified 30 topics. [*2] Before the Court is Defendant's motion for a protective order to prevent Plaintiff from proceeding with the deposition notice as drafted, arguing that several of the Rule 30(b)(6) topics identified are overbroad, unduly burdensome, or irrelevant. Dkt. 54. Defendant has responded to the motion. Dkt. 59.
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) addresses deposition discovery directed to a corporation. It states that a deposition notice "must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination[,]" and the corporation "must then designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Then, the corporation must prepare the designated person so that he/she can "testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization." Id.
The scope of Rule 30(b)(6) is limited by Rule 26 which permits "discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26 also allows a court, upon a showing of good cause, to enter a protective order to protect a party from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, [*3] or undue burden or expense[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Finally, Rule 26 requires that the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that:
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25488 *; 2021 WL 492902
Putco, Inc., Plaintiff/ Counter-Defendant, v. Carjamz Com Inc., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
Subsequent History: Stay granted by Putco, Inc. v. Carjamz Com, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205609 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 2, 2021)
patents, discovery, headlight, products, argues, Infringing, prior art, overbroad, protective order, responds, deposition notice, deposition, invention, heat, sink, requests, designate, damages, reasonably available, filing date, interrogatory, burdensome, license, prepare, relates, agrees, metal, solid