Gauen v. Board of Education Highland Community Unit School District No 5
3:16-cv-00207
S.D. Ill.Jan 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff sued Highland Community Unit School District No. 5 alleging Title VII gender discrimination, Equal Pay Act, and Illinois Pay Act violations.
- Plaintiff served a Rule 30(b)(6) notice (Dec. 1, 2016) and scheduled a corporate-representative deposition for Jan. 19, 2017.
- Defendant objected to several deposition topics as cumulative/duplicative and seeking attorney work product/defense strategy, and moved for a protective order; it did not produce the witness for the scheduled deposition.
- Plaintiff sought sanctions for Defendant’s nonappearance and pursued the deposition topics; Defendant argued prior individual depositions and documents made the 30(b)(6) unnecessary or invasive.
- Court held a discovery dispute conference (Jan. 24, 2017) to decide scope of permissible topics and whether sanctions or a protective order were warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 30(b)(6) topics are unreasonably cumulative/duplicative | 30(b)(6) needed because prior deponents gave inconsistent or incomplete testimony; it binds the corporation | Prior depositions and produced documents make corporate rep testimony duplicative | Denied — not unreasonably cumulative; 30(b)(6) permitted (parties encouraged to narrow by stipulation) |
| Whether 30(b)(6) topics improperly seek attorney work product/defense strategy | Requests are factual and seek binding corporate testimony, not privileged strategy | Topics as drafted seek factual bases for defenses and amount to probing legal strategy/contention interrogatories | Granted in part — Plaintiff may probe factual allegations but may not frame questions as contention interrogatories or demand factual bases for defenses |
| Whether topics lack specificity or are overbroad in scope/time | Plaintiff did not focus on these objections; topics are reasonably specific | Topics are vague and temporally broad | Denied — court found no good cause to issue protective order absent more detail |
| Whether sanctions are appropriate for Defendant’s failure to appear | Plaintiff sought costs for reporter and briefing | Defendant moved for protective order before deposition date and nonappearance was isolated | Denied — sanctions unwarranted given Defendant’s pending protective-order motion and isolated incident |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Vegas Const. Co., 251 F.R.D. 534 (D. Nev. 2008) (corporation must prepare a 30(b)(6) witness to provide binding answers)
- Felling v. Knight, 211 F.R.D. 552 (S.D. Ind. 2003) (party seeking protective order bears burden to show good cause)
- Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Dolman, 333 F.2d 257 (9th Cir. 1964) (better practice to obtain protective order or stay before date of deposition)