Abdullah v. Blazin Wings Inc, 2:20-cv-00612

Plaintiff (African American) alleges a racially-motivated assault/incident at the Buffalo Wild Wings in Glendale, WI, involving a white contract security guard employed by Meress; claims include §1981 discrimination, negligence, and an injunction under §2000a.
Plaintiff served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on Blazin Wings seeking corporate testimony on topics including customer complaints, employee discipline, security services, and factual bases for defenses.
Blazin Wings moved for a protective order, arguing certain topics were overbroad (covering all discrimination types and “employee services”), were improper in geographic scope (company-wide), or implicated attorney-client privilege/work product.
Plaintiff agreed to narrow topics #5 and #6 to race discrimination but opposed other restrictions, arguing company-wide policies and decision-making about hiring Meress were relevant.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part: limited topics #5 and #6 to race; restricted topics #5–#9 geographically to locations under the District Manager responsible for Glendale and any locations where Meress provided security; denied the protective order as to topic #3 and the remainder of Blazin Wings’ requests.
The court concluded privilege concerns could be handled at deposition if they arise and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether topics #5 and #6 are overbroad for covering all forms of discrimination	Narrow to race (Plaintiff agreed to this limitation)	Overbroad; seeks irrelevant categories	Limited to race discrimination
Whether topic #9 should refer to security services rather than all "employee services"	May cover customer complaints about security services	Overbroad and not limited to security	Authorized to cover complaints about security services
Geographic scope of topics #5–#9 (company-wide v. localized)	Company-wide discovery justified by organizational decision-making	Unduly burdensome and a fishing expedition given hundreds of locations	Restricted to locations under the District Manager for Glendale and any sites where Meress provided security
Whether topic #3 lacks reasonable particularity and improperly seeks privileged information (factual bases for defenses)	Seeking factual bases for defenses is proper; Rule 30(b)(6) can probe those facts	Topic is vague and risks disclosure of privileged attorney-client or work product information	Protective order denied; topic permissible, privilege rulings to be addressed if invoked at deposition

Ball Corp. v. Air Tech of Michigan, Inc., 329 F.R.D. 599 (N.D. Ind. 2019) (party seeking protective order must show good cause with particularized facts)
U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Ent., Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428 (D. Nev. 2006) (30(b)(6) may probe factual bases for a party's positions; counsel can address privilege at deposition)
Prokosch v. Catalina Lighting, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 633 (D. Minn. 2000) (burden to prepare a knowledgeable 30(b)(6) witness may be onerous but is appropriate)
AMP, Inc. v. Fujitsu Microelectronics, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 808 (M.D. Pa. 1994) (party asserting defenses should provide a witness to testify to factual bases)
Protective Nat. Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 137 F.R.D. 267 (D. Neb. 1989) (counsel may instruct witnesses not to answer to protect privileged information)
McBride v. Medicalodges, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 581 (D. Kan. 2008) (premature to assume deposition will elicit privileged information; privilege disputes addressed if they arise)
In re Indep. Serv. Antitrust Litig., 168 F.R.D. 651 (D. Kan. 1996) (example of complex matters where 30(b)(6) particularity issues arise)