319 F.R.D. 422
D.P.R.2016Background
- TransCore served interrogatories and document requests to PRHTA in December 2015; PRHTA missed court-ordered response deadlines and produced incomplete responses with broad objections.
- After meet-and-confer efforts, PRHTA supplemented production but withheld many documents asserting privilege, work-product, overbreadth, or irrelevance.
- TransCore moved to compel and for sanctions; PRHTA moved for a protective order after it failed to appear at a noticed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition scheduled for June 30, 2016.
- PRHTA asserted that discovery of extrinsic evidence was unnecessary because the contract was unambiguous; TransCore argued broad discovery is permissible under Rule 26 and sought fuller answers and documents.
- The court found many of PRHTA’s objections were boilerplate or unsupported, granted much of TransCore’s motion to compel, denied PRHTA’s protective order, and sanctioned PRHTA for failing to attend the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
- The court ordered specific compelled interrogatory and production responses, directed PRHTA to provide privilege/work-product detail by a set date or waive the privileges, required PRHTA to prepare Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, awarded TransCore costs for the missed deposition, and extended discovery to Feb. 28, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PRHTA) | Defendant's Argument (TransCore) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of discovery — relevance of extrinsic evidence | Contract is clear; extrinsic evidence not discoverable unless court finds ambiguity | Broad discovery permitted; relevance under Rule 26 does not require admissibility | Court: PRHTA’s blanket objection rejected; extrinsic evidence may be discoverable under Rule 26 |
| Sufficiency of PRHTA’s interrogatory and production objections | Objections: privilege, overbreadth, irrelevance, and that identification is pending | Objections are boilerplate and non-specific; responses incomplete or referential | Court: many objections overruled; ordered substantive answers and document production for enumerated items |
| Privilege and work-product claims for withheld documents | Certain documents are privileged or work-product; thus withheld | PRHTA failed to describe items with sufficient specificity to support privilege/work-product assertions | Court: refused to compel immediately but ordered PRHTA to produce detailed privilege/work-product descriptions by deadline or waive privilege |
| Failure to appear at Rule 30(b)(6) deposition / protective order | Deposition topics lack reasonable particularity; request burdensome and seeks irrelevant matters; sought protective order | Notice was proper; PRHTA’s objections were untimely/boilerplate; failure to appear unjustified | Court: denied protective order; found PRHTA’s nonappearance violative of Rule 37 and ordered PRHTA to pay TransCore’s reasonable expenses for the missed deposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Sánchez-Medina v. UNICCO Serv. Co., 265 F.R.D. 24 (D.P.R. 2009) (objecting party bears burden to show specific lack of relevancy or undue burden)
- St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (objection burden on resisting party)
- Mulero-Abreu v. Puerto Rico Police Dep’t, 675 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 2012) (answers that simply refer to other discovery are insufficient under Rule 33)
- Jayne H. Lee, Inc. v. Flagstaff Indus. Corp., 173 F.R.D. 651 (D. Md. 1997) (promise to produce at unspecified future time is not a complete Rule 34 response)
- Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226 (M.D.N.C. 2010) (continuing to search and supplement is inadequate for long-standing requests)
- Marker v. Union Fid. Life Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D. 121 (M.D.N.C. 1989) (Rule 30(b)(6) designee must be prepared to give binding answers; depositions are favored and protective orders prohibiting them are rare)
- Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.) v. P.R. Water Res. Auth., 93 F.R.D. 62 (D.P.R. 1981) (Rule 30(b)(6) notice complies if it allows organization to identify who must testify)
- Cavallaro v. United States, 284 F.3d 236 (1st Cir. 2002) (elements of attorney-client privilege)