Aragon v. RISE Law Group, Inc.
1:22-cv-00935
| D. Or. | Jul 3, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Heather Aragon brought suit against Rise Law Group, Inc., with discovery disputes arising during litigation.
- Defendants sought to quash Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, arguing undue burden and duplicativeness as the relevant witnesses had already been deposed individually.
- The Court previously ruled that Plaintiff was entitled to a proper corporate deposition under Rule 30(b)(6), instructing Defendants to designate and prepare a qualified witness.
- Defendants designated Ms. Pitcher but she failed to adequately prepare or review materials relevant to the deposition topics, leading Plaintiff to seek sanctions.
- Defendants filed untimely motions seeking to extend discovery deadlines and to compel additional discovery from Plaintiff.
- The Court considered the parties' arguments regarding the adequacy of deposition preparation, discovery production, and procedural compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Rule 30(b)(6) deponent preparation | Defendants failed to prepare their witness, violating Rule 30(b)(6) | No need for additional deposition; topics duplicative and burdensome | For Plaintiff: Defendants failed to prepare properly |
| Timeliness and sufficiency of Defendants’ response to motion | No timely response; Defendants' arguments are disingenuous and untimely | Plaintiff didn’t properly confer or clarify topics in advance | For Plaintiff: Defendants’ contentions unavailing |
| Request for sanctions | Requests limitation of Defendants to deposition testimony and attorney’s fees | No substantial justification for further discovery or extension | For Plaintiff: Sanctions and fees granted |
| Motions to extend and compel discovery | Plaintiff responded in time; objections and redactions justified | Discovery deadline should be extended due to excusable neglect | For Plaintiff: Motions denied, discovery not re-opened |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Vegas Constr. Co., 251 F.R.D. 534 (D. Nev. 2008) (explains duty to prepare 30(b)(6) witness extends beyond personal knowledge)
- Black Horse Lane Assoc., L.P. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 228 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2000) (adequate 30(b)(6) testimony is required; corporate party can’t evade discovery)
- United States v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356 (M.D.N.C. 1996) (corporate designee must review prior testimony and documents to be fully informed)
- Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions for discovery violations)