United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ERIC KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of RUDIE KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, deceased, Plaintiff,
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT PNEUMO ABEX, LLC'S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED
NOTICE OF 30(B)(6) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ABEX
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Pneumo Abex,
LLC's (“Abex”) Motion for Protective Order
Re: Plaintiff's Third Amended Notice of 30(b)(6)
Videotaped Deposition of Abex (“Motion for Protective
Order”). Dkt. 396. The Court has considered the motion,
all materials filed in support of and in opposition to the
motion, and the remainder of the record herein, and it is
reasons set forth below, Abex's Motion for Protective
Order (Dkt. 396) should be granted.
issue are two Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics.
Plaintiff's initial Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice to
Abex originally identified 71 topics. Dkt. 398-1, at 2-21.
After the parties met and conferred, Plaintiff edited the
deposition notice to 34 topics, as reflected in
Plaintiff's Third Amended Notice served on September 26,
2019. Dkts. 396, at 1-2; and 398-1, at 23-34. Abex agreed to
tender a Rule 30(b)(6) witness with respect to 32 of the 34
topics, but the parties were unable to come to an agreement
regarding Topics 4 and 5, which are as follows:
4. Abex's corporate values and codes of conduct regarding
the importance of the health and safety of individuals in the
United States who come in contact with Abex's
asbestos-containing friction materials between 1960 and 1987.
5. Abex's position, subjective beliefs, and opinions
about the proper and reasonable conduct of a manufacturer and
seller of asbestos-containing automotive products in the
United States between 1960 and 1987.
Dkts. 396, at 2; and 398-1, at 24.
filed the instant Motion for Protective Order as to Topics 4
and 5 of Plaintiff's Third Amended Notice. Dkt. 396. Abex
argues that “these two topics are overbroad, unduly
burdensome and lack particularity; are disproportionate to
the needs of this case; improperly seek legal or expert
testimony applying facts to policies; and are inconsistent
with the Court's previous orders in this case [(Dkts.
303; and 353)].” Dkt. 396, at 2.
responded in opposition to Abex's motion for a protective
order. Dkt. 416. Plaintiff argues that the topics do not
improperly seek expert opinion and “are not overbroad,
lacking particularity, or unduly burdensome because they are
limited by time (1960-1987), location (United States),
product (asbestos friction material), and defendant
(Abex).” Dkt. 416, at 2-3.
replied in support of its motion seeking a protective order.
Meet and Confer Requirement
26(c)(1) provides, in part, that a motion for protective
order “must include a certification that the movant has
in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other
affected parties in an effort to ...