2:16-cv-02740
D. Kan.Jan 3, 2018Background
- North Alabama Fabricating (Plaintiff) sued Bedeschi, Dearborn, Larry Harp, and Braxton Jones for unpaid fabrication work and Bedeschi counterclaimed alleging delivered steel parts were defective or unfinished.
- Defendants asserted in interrogatory answers that they could not determine nonconformance until the parts were assembled at the project site.
- Plaintiff served a Rule 30(b)(6) notice covering Topics 8, 9, 11–13 (conformance, delays/defects, testing/quality control, breaches, and factual basis for potential claims).
- Bedeschi produced corporate designees (Jones and Harp) for depositions on August 2, 2017; both testified Bedeschi had not inspected the goods at the Essar site and had no evidence of nonconformance.
- One week later (August 10), Bedeschi inspected the unassembled goods at Essar; on August 23 it produced a Daily Paint Inspection Report and nonconformance reports documenting rust and potential defects.
- Plaintiff moved for sanctions alleging (1) false/misleading interrogatory answers, (2) failure to properly prepare 30(b)(6) witnesses, and (3) unsupported counterclaim. The court granted sanctions in part (limited remedial deposition and cost-shifting) and denied default judgment and other sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Defendants’ interrogatory answers sanctionable as false/misleading? | Answers claiming inability to determine defects until assembly were false because unassembled inspection could reveal defects. | Answers reflected information reasonably known at the time; supplementation obligation arose only after inspection. | Denied — no evidence answers were knowingly false; Inspection Report supplemented responses timely. |
| Did Bedeschi fail to properly prepare Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses? | Bedeschi deliberately produced unprepared designees to sandbag Plaintiff and later produced evidence. | Rule 30(b)(6) requires testimony on information "known or reasonably available"; inspecting out-of-state property was not required. | Granted in part — production of unprepared witnesses was sanctionable; remedial deposition ordered. |
| Appropriate sanction for unprepared 30(b)(6) testimony? | Plaintiff sought default judgment and monetary sanctions. | Bedeschi offered to produce another deposition and pay transcript costs. | Default judgment denied as too severe; court ordered another deposition on specific topics within 30 days and required Bedeschi to pay deposition costs and transcript. |
| Timeliness / procedural grounds for sanctions motion? | Motion timely under Rule 37; Rule 37(c) and other rules permit sanctions without prior motion to compel. | Plaintiff failed to seek a prior motion to compel and waited too long under local rules. | Court found local 30-day rule inapplicable to sanctions motion; Plaintiff not required to file a motion to compel first. |
Key Cases Cited
- Starlight Int'l Inc. v. Herlihy, 186 F.R.D. 626 (D. Kan. 1999) (Rule 30(b)(6) requires designees to testify about information known or reasonably available and be adequately prepared)
- Cherrington Asia Ltd. v. A & L Underground, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 653 (D. Kan. 2009) (producing an unprepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness is tantamount to a deposition failure and may warrant sanctions)
- Marker v. Union Fid. Life Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D. 121 (M.D.N.C. 1989) (corporation must prepare witnesses to give complete, knowledgeable, binding answers on behalf of the corporation)