151 F. Supp. 3d 1309
S.D. Fla.2015Background
- United States sued Florida under the ADA alleging inadequate nursing facilities for disabled children and sought damages for identified children; originally 19 named, later expanded by the U.S. to an additional 163 children discovered after filing.
- Florida served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice seeking facts underlying the U.S. complaint and the children for whom the U.S. seeks damages; the U.S. sought a protective order which the magistrate denied.
- The U.S. produced an unprepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness; the magistrate sanctioned the U.S. and ordered further preparation and additional Rule 30(b)(6) testimony about facts known or reasonably available to the U.S. from its investigation.
- A dispute arose over whether the required testimony extended to facts learned by the U.S. through post-filing third-party witness interviews (i.e., investigations conducted after suit began).
- Magistrate Judge Hunt granted Florida’s motion for clarification, held that facts learned in the U.S.’s post-filing investigations (outside formal discovery) are within the scope of Rule 30(b)(6) testimony (subject to work-product limits), and denied the U.S. motion for reconsideration of sanctions.
- The district court (Judge Zloch) reviewed the U.S.’s objections under Rule 72(a) and affirmed the magistrate: (1) the magistrate’s characterization of post-filing interviews was not clearly erroneous; (2) factual information from those interviews is discoverable despite work-product claims; and (3) the imposition of sanctions was not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Rule 30(b)(6) testimony regarding facts learned after filing | U.S.: post-filing third-party interviews are not "investigations" to add claims; testimony should be limited to facts known at time of filing | Florida: entitled to facts known to the U.S. at deposition time, including post-filing interview facts that support additional damage assertions | Magistrate and district court: magistrate’s description not clearly erroneous; post-filing factual information is within Rule 30(b)(6) scope (subject to limits) |
| Work-product protection for facts obtained via counsel-led interviews | U.S.: requiring testimony about post-filing interview facts improperly invades work product | Florida: factual information is not core work product and is discoverable; only mental impressions/opinions are protected | Court: work-product protects impressions/theories but not underlying facts; factual information from interviews must be disclosed (with privilege objections permitted for mental impressions) |
| Appropriate discovery method (deposition vs interrogatory) for interview-derived facts | U.S.: interrogatories, not Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, are proper to seek these facts | Florida: court may order facts produced by deposition; method is within court’s discretion | Court: magistrate did not abuse discretion in ordering a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition rather than limiting discovery to interrogatories |
| Sanctions for inadequate Rule 30(b)(6) preparation | U.S.: its witness was adequately prepared; sanctions were unwarranted | Florida: U.S. witness was unprepared and sanctions were appropriate | Court: magistrate’s finding that the U.S. witness was inadequately prepared is supported by the record; sanctions upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985) (Federal Rules favor broad discovery)
- Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994) (work-product protects attorney impressions, not underlying facts)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947) (foundation of work-product doctrine)
- United States v. Dentsply, 187 F.R.D. 152 (D. Del. 1999) (facts obtained in witness interviews are discoverable despite work-product objections)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 262 (10th Cir. 1995) (facts contained within work-product are not protected)
- Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 738 F.2d 587 (3d Cir. 1984) (when documents mix facts and legal theories, opposing party is entitled to discover the facts)