Wells v. Lamplight Farms, Incorporated, 5:13-cv-04070

22-month-old N.K.W. died after ingesting Lamplight-manufactured tiki oil; plaintiffs sued Lamplight for defective packaging; parent company W.C. Bradley Co. (Bradley) also named.
Scheduling order set discovery deadline of Jan 15, 2015; trial set for June 15, 2015; plaintiffs had taken two Rule 30(b)(6) depositions in November 2014.
Plaintiffs served additional deposition notices for (1) Joel Borgardt (Lamplight president/COO), (2) Marc R. Olivie (Bradley president/CEO), and (3) William B. Turner, Jr. (former Bradley president/COO).
Defendants moved to quash and for a protective order invoking the "apex doctrine," arguing high-level executives lack unique knowledge and their depositions are unduly burdensome.
Court found Olivie and Turner (Bradley executives) had only perfunctory knowledge from reports and were not involved in Lamplight’s day-to-day or design decision work; Borgardt (Lamplight president/COO) had active involvement and final approval on the container design change.
Court allowed Borgardt’s individual deposition limited to his personal knowledge, quashed notices for Olivie and Turner, and granted a limited discovery extension to take Borgardt’s deposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether high-level executives may be deposed under the apex doctrine	Execs have relevant knowledge; need testimony (30(b)(1) notices served)	Apex doctrine protects executives absent unique knowledge and exhaustion of less burdensome means	Apex protection applied to Bradley executives Olivie and Turner; their notices quashed
Whether Borgardt (Lamplight president/COO) must testify	Borgardt had active role and final approval on design change; deposition necessary	Lamplight argued executive burden and other employees more directly involved; Borgardt not required as 30(b)(6) rep	Borgardt must testify in his individual capacity about his personal knowledge; deposition allowed
Whether Borgardt can be compelled as a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative	Plaintiffs sought his testimony following 30(b)(6) notice strategy	Lamplight previously designated other 30(b)(6) witnesses; Borgardt not obliged to speak for the company	Court clarified Borgardt need only testify as to personal knowledge and is not required as 30(b)(6) corporate representative
Whether discovery deadline should be extended to permit Borgardt’s deposition	Plaintiffs requested brief extension to complete his deposition	Defendants opposed expanding discovery schedule	Court granted limited extension solely to take Borgardt’s deposition

Rolscreen Co. v. Pella Prods. of St. Louis, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 92 (S.D. Iowa 1992) (protective orders barring depositions of high-level officials are rarely granted without extraordinary circumstances)
Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1979) (recognizing limits on deposition of corporate officials and requiring substantial justification)
Estate of Thompson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Inc., 291 F.R.D. 297 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (distinguishing personal-capacity testimony from Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative testimony)