277 F.R.D. 205
D.D.C.2011Background
- Copyright infringement action by Rundquist against Vapiano entities over use of her photos as decor.
- Plaintiff sought depositions of six individuals (Hahne, Rader, Thun, Luible, Sauer, Gerlach) as corporate witnesses under Rule 30(b)(6).
- Court previously allowed limited jurisdictional discovery regarding Vapiano SE and set deadlines (2011).
- Differences in status of proposed deponents: some are former employees; others hold executive roles; several contested whether they are managing agents.
- Court denies depositions of Hahne, Rader, Thun, Luible; grants deposition of Sauer (DC) and Gerlach (DC); grants 60-day extension of jurisdictional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hahne is a managing agent warranting deposition | Hahne is founder/exec with ongoing influence | Hahne is no longer an employee or managing agent | Denied; former employee cannot be a managing agent for Rule 30(b)(6) |
| Whether Rader is a managing agent warranting deposition | Rader held officer/director roles with ongoing ties | Rader no longer an officer/director or managing agent | Denied; insufficient evidence of current managing-agent status |
| Whether Thun is a managing agent warranting deposition | Thun listed as executive on Vapiano site | Thun was an architect/independent contractor, not managing agent | Denied; not a current managing agent engaged by defendants |
| Whether Luible is a managing agent warranting deposition | Luible listed as former executive/franchise owner with oversight | Luible is a former employee/owner, not managing agent | Denied; former employee not subject to Rule 30(b)(6) |
| Depositions of Sauer and Gerlach; location and discovery extension | Sauer is Vapiano SE’s Head of Franchising; Gerlach is current CEO; want DC depositions and extended discovery | Sauer may lack US-relevant knowledge; Gerlach deposition appropriate where principal offices located | Gerlach deposition in DC granted; Sauer deposition in DC granted; 60-day extension of jurisdictional discovery granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Honda Am. Motor Co., Inc. Dealership Relations Litig., 168 F.R.D. 535 (D. Md. 1996) (managing-agent analysis hinges on time-specific status and duties)
- Simms v. Center for Correctional Health and Policy Studies, 272 F.R.D. 36 (D.D.C. 2011) (former employees generally cannot be compelled as managing agents)
- Kolon Indus., Inc. v. DuPont, 268 F.R.D. 45 (E.D. Va. 2010) (factors for determining managing-agent status include discretion, dependability, alignment with employer, and supervision)
- Barko v. Halliburton Co., 270 F.R.D. 26 (D.D.C. 2010) (depositions of foreign-defendant officers/agents generally at principal place of business; rebuttable presumption)
- Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Webster, 802 F.2d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (framework for determining managing-agent status as a fact-intensive inquiry)
- National Community Reinvestment Coalition v. Novastar Fin. Inc., 604 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2009) (location factors for where 30(b)(6) depositions should occur)