JAMES PATRICK BOYER, an individual; CATHERINE BOYER, an individual, Plaintiffs,
REED SMITH, LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership; JAMES J. BARNES, an individual; LMJ ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT REED SMITH'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING SCOPE OF RULE (6)
ROBERT J. BRYAN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Reed Smith, LLP's motion for a protective order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(D). Dkt. 52. The Court has considered the pleadings in support and in opposition to the motion and the record herein.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In November 2006, Pat Boyer, alongside LMJ Enterprises, LLC (LMJ), invested in Turning Wheel, a Florida-based company that operated multiple RV dealerships. Dkt. 1. Over the next three plus years, Boyer would make additional investments in the company. Id. Boyer alleges that his collective investments totaled over $4.1 million. Id. Turning Wheel failed and was closed for business in November 2010. Id.
The Boyers filed the instant lawsuit against LMJ, James Barnes, and Reed Smith, LLP. Dkt. 1. The Boyers assert three causes of action against Defendant Reed Smith: (1) Washington State Securities Act violations; (2) constructive fraud; and (3) negligent misrepresentation. Id.
LMJ was a personal investment vehicle for its three members James Barnes, Renaldo Jerrell, and Harry Hardwick. Barnes is a partner in the law firm of Reed Smith, LLP. Dkt. 12. Reed Smith's principal place of business is located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Barnes is the office managing partner of Reed Smith's Pittsburgh office. Reed Smith employs over 1800 lawyers across more than two dozen offices throughout the United States, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Dkt. 52. Reed Smith attorneys provide their clients with a full spectrum of legal services including litigation, transactional, regulatory, bankruptcy, trusts and estates, and tax services. Id.
On August 23, 2013, Plaintiffs served Reed Smith with notice of its intent to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Dkt. 53 pp. 5-8. The notice enumerated sixteen separate topics for examination. Id. Reed Smith provided its response and objections to the 30(b)(6) notice on September 6. Dkt. 53 pp. 10-16. In its response, Reed Smith agreed to provide a designee to testify regarding:
 Reed Smith's policy and practices with respect to its individual partners' acquisition, ownership, or sale of interests in other businesses, partnerships, or corporations (Topic 3);
 Reed Smith's policy and practices with respect to its individual partners selling or facilitating the sale of securities for personal benefit (Topic 4);
 Reed Smith's policy and practices with respect to assisting its partners in the solicitation of capital for their personal businesses or ventures (Topic 5);
 Reed Smith's policy and practices with respect to providing legal services for its individual partners or their separate, personal businesses or ventures (Topic 6);
 Reed Smith's policy and practices with respect to authorizing individual partners to perform legal services for third parties separate from work performed on behalf of Reed Smith (Topic 12);
 Reed Smith would provide a witness to testify to the written duties of an office Managing Partner; and
 Reed Smith's policy and practices with respect to partners, attorneys, and employees utilizing Reed Smith's resources, including facilities, computers, printers, programs, email accounts, letterhead, office supplies, attorneys, and for support staff for ...