Pingree v. University of Utah
2:20-cv-00724
D. UtahJun 4, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Rita Florian Pingree sought to compel the University of Utah to provide testimony pursuant to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on various topics, some dating back to 2012 and including topics on email retention policies and account access.
- The University objected, arguing that the repeated deposition notices violated local rule DUCivR30-2 (limiting Rule 30(b)(6) notices) and disputed the relevance and proportionality of certain topics (especially Topics 8 and 9).
- Magistrate Judge Romero granted Pingree’s motion to compel in part—allowing a deposition limited in time (2014-present) and excluding Topics 8 and 9.
- Pingree objected to the limitations, arguing the decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law for not including information dating back to 2012 and for excluding email policy topics.
- The District Court reviewed the magistrate’s nondispositive ruling under the deferential “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard per FRCP 72(a), and ultimately overruled Pingree's objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Deposition Temporal Limits (2012 vs. 2014) | Information from 2012 is relevant; should go back further | Should be limited to 2014 based on limitations, relevance | Limiting to 2014 not clearly erroneous; objection denied |
| Exclusion of Topics 8 & 9 (email retention/access) | Topics are relevant for potential spoliation and ESI preservation | Topics irrelevant, not proportional, improper discovery | Exclusion not contrary to law or clearly erroneous |
| Proper use of multiple 30(b)(6) notices | Notices were amendments due to new facts/discovery | Multiple notices violate local rule DUCivR30-2 | No violation as no deposition had occurred; allowed |
| Proportionality under Rule 26(b)(1) | Topics are important to resolving the issues at stake | Plaintiff has access, proposed discovery is burdensome | Topics not proportional; exclusion appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948) (defining "clearly erroneous" standard for judicial review of factual findings)
- Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458 (10th Cir. 1988) (applying "clearly erroneous" standard to magistrate judge orders)
- Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1992) (articulating the "contrary to law" standard for reviewing magistrate judge decisions)
- Phinney v. Wentworth Douglas Hosp., 199 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (objecting party must specifically state claims of error for review under Rule 72(a))