SNMP Research, Inc. v. Broadcom Inc., 3:20-cv-00451

Background

Plaintiffs SNMP Research, Inc. and SNMP Research International, Inc. sued Extreme Networks, Inc. and sought discovery on various topics, including the scope of Extreme’s responses to written discovery (Topic 9) under Rule 30(b)(6).
There was confusion and disagreement between the parties over the scope of Topic 9, specifically whether Extreme’s deposition witness needed to testify about all written discovery responses, including interrogatories, or just the process of collecting documents.
Extreme’s 30(b)(6) designee, Mr. DeBacker, was not fully prepared to testify on all aspects of Topic 9, particularly regarding written interrogatories, leading Plaintiffs to seek to reopen the deposition.
Plaintiffs alleged that Extreme’s counsel made improper speaking objections during the deposition, hindering inquiry on Topic 9.
Extreme believed the scope of Topic 9 was limited by agreement to the document collection process and opposed reopening or expanding the deposition absent more specificity and non-duplication.
The Court found the scope of Topic 9 as noticed was not sufficiently particular and ordered Plaintiffs to revise the topic.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Extreme must produce a 30(b)(6) witness prepared on all written discovery or just document collection.	Topic 9 validly encompasses all written discovery, including interrogatories; defense counsel’s objections were improper.	Parties had agreed to limit Topic 9 to document collection; requiring testimony on all written responses is overbroad and duplicative.	Plaintiffs entitled to further deposition on Topic 9 but must revise topic for reasonable particularity and non-duplication.
Improper speaking objections by defense counsel during the deposition.	Defense counsel made frequent and improper speaking objections disrupting deposition.	Any objections were based on scope agreed during meet and confer and pending motions.	Defense counsel should avoid speaking objections; however, most stemmed from the misunderstanding about scope.
Whether Topic 9 as written is sufficiently particular under Rule 30(b)(6).	Topic 9 is particular enough since Extreme already has the factual information.	Topic 9 is overly broad and would require encyclopedic knowledge, is duplicative of other topics.	Court held Topic 9 is not reasonably particular and must be narrowed.
Burden to seek protective order when disputes arise over deposition scope.	Extreme should have sought a protective order if objecting to deposition questions’ scope.	No protective order needed as the scope had been limited by mutual agreement.	The onus is on the responding party to seek a protective order absent agreement; misunderstanding warranted reopening deposition with clearer scope.

Key Cases Cited

QBE Ins. Corp. v. Jorda Enters., Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (discusses burdens imposed on both parties in 30(b)(6) depositions)
Schnatter v. 247 Grp., LLC, 343 F.R.D. 325 (W.D. Ky. 2022) (organization must prepare deponent on knowledge reasonably available to company)
Woods v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 589 F. Supp. 3d 675 (E.D. Ky. 2022) (topic seeking all discovery responses is overbroad and lacks particularity)