Wieland v. Bd. of Regents of the Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ.

Wieland v. Bd. of Regents of the Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ.

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[ECF No. 74]

Pending before the Court is Defendant Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education's ("Board of Regents") motion for a protective order with respect to a noticed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. (ECF No. 74). Plaintiff Alice Wieland ("Wieland") responded, (ECF No. 77), and the Board of Regents replied, (ECF No. 78). For the reasons discussed below, the motion for protective order is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The instant case arises out of allegations of discrimination based on age, sex and national origin, retaliation, and breach of contract, in relation to Wieland's denial of tenure at the University of Nevada, Reno ("University") in 2017. (ECF No. 1.)

Discovery in this case has proved somewhat contentious. The parties [*2]  have filed numerous notices of discovery disputes, beginning in January 2021. (See e.g., ECF Nos. 38, 40.) On May 28, 2021, the Board of Regents filed a notice of discovery dispute related to a noticed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. (ECF No. 70.) On June 8, 2021, the Court held a hearing to address the discovery dispute. (ECF No. 73.) The Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the notice of discovery dispute, and further ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding several topics and ordered the Board of Regents to file a motion for protective order regarding the topics the parties were unable to reach an agreement on. (Id.) Pursuant to this Court's order, the Board of Regents filed the instant motion for protective order, (ECF No. 74). The parties contest the appropriateness of Wieland's Third-Amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice to the Board of Regents that covers sixty-three topics, spanning roughly twelve pages. (See ECF No. 74-7.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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