Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Freeman, 288 F.R.D. 92

Defendant Freeman moves to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of EEOC on specific topics about EEOC policy guidance and Enforcement Guidance.
EEOC sought a protective order; the court previously allowed deposition of EEOC regarding its policy guidance on the legal standard under Title VII.
OPM intervened to protect privileged information in its Suitability Processing Handbook; the court granted intervention.
Two specifications designated to Plaintiff’s witness Miaskoff involve identifying EEOC’s policy guidance on the legal standard for disparate impact challenges to arrest/conviction and to credit history.
During deposition, the deponent answered some questions but was instructed not to answer five questions on grounds including work product, deliberative process, and scope.
The court denies the motion to compel a second deposition and denies sanctions or costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of 30(b)(6) deposition	Scope includes identification of EEOC guidelines relevant to the legal standard.	EEOC intent regarding Enforcement Guidance is within scope.	First two questions within scope; Enforcement Guidance intent outside scope.
Relevance and discoverability of Enforcement Guidance	Questions about Enforcement Guidance are relevant to EEOC practices.	Questions intrude into agency deliberations and are outside scope.	Questions outside scope; limited further inquiry due to privilege.
Privilege and work product protections	Deliberative process and attorney work product prevent answering.	Should compel identification of regulations beyond privilege scope.	Deliberative process and work product limit further questioning; identification allowed but broader probing not compelled.
Sanctions	No sanctions; questions were within scope or colorably argued.	Sanctions warranted for improper instruction not to answer.	Sanctions not warranted; partial improper instructions but not sanctionable.

Falchenberg v. New York State Dept. of Educ., 642 F.Supp.2d 156 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (scope of deposition and limits on questioning)
Detoy v. City & County of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D. 362 (N.D. Cal.2000) (scope of 30(b)(6) and rebuttal of outside topics)
Boyd v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys., 173 F.R.D. 143 (D. Md.1997) (deposition conduct and guidelines on improper instruction not to answer)
Neuberger Berman Real Estate Income Fund, Inc. v. Lola Brown Trust No. 1B, 230 F.R.D. 398 (D. Md.2005) (attorney work product and deliberative process privilege standards)
In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582 (4th Cir.1997) (attorney work product protection framework)
Cabana v. Forcier, 200 F.R.D. 9 (D. Mass.2001) (contention interrogatories vs. depositions)