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 ON DEFENDANTS TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AND
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.'S RENEWED MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER PROTECTING THEIR WITNESSES PRODUCED PURSUANT
TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(B)(6)
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Toyota Motor
Corporation (“TMC”) and Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc.'s (“TMS”) (collectively
“Toyota Defendants”) Renewed Motion for
Protective Order Protecting Their Witnesses Produced Pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) (“Renewed Motion”). Dkt.
399. 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 fully advised.
reasons set forth below, Toyota Defendants' Renewed
Motion (Dkt. 399) should be granted, in part, and denied, in
August 22, 2019, Toyota Defendants filed a Motion for
Protective Order (Dkt. 325), which the Court granted, in
part, and denied, in part. Dkt. 353. The Court ruled that
“Plaintiff should review, reconsider, amend, and
re-serve all parts of the notices of deposition by September
24, 2019. If there is further concern about the notices, the
parties should meet and confer before asking for the
Court's intervention.” Dkt. 353, at 7.
October 3, 2019, Toyota Defendants filed the instant Renewed
Motion. Dkt. 399. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to
the Renewed Motion. Dkt. 418. Toyota Defendants filed a reply
in support of their Renewed Motion. Dkt. 420.
the Court's prior ruling (Dkt. 353), Plaintiff and Toyota
Defendants met and conferred twice, resulting in various
revisions and a reduction in Matters of Examination
(“Topics”) and in Requests in the Schedule of
Documents (“Requests”), as reflected in the
Second Amended Notices of Deposition (Dkt. 419, at 269-300).
Dkt. 399, at 2. Nevertheless, Toyota Defendants and Plaintiff
were unable to agree on many of the Topics and Requests in
the Second Amended Notices of Deposition. Dkts. 399; 418; and
Defendants argue that the Second Amended Notices' Matters
and Requests suffer from three primary defects:
1. Overbreadth and disproportionality as to time frame
(Topics 3-4, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27, 28, 38, 39, 42, and
49; Requests 3, 12, TMS Request 19/TMC Request 18,
Request 20/TMC Request 19);
2. Overbreadth and disproportionality as to products at issue
(Matters 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 11- 24, 26, 28, 31-32, 35, 41-47, TMS
Matter 53/TMC Matter 52; TMS Requests 2, 5, 6, 8-12); and
3. Invasion of attorney-client privilege and/or work product
protections (Matters 5, 43- 47, TMS Matter 52/TMC Matter 51,
TMS Matter 53/TMC Matter 52; Requests 14, TMS Request 15/TMC
Request 14, and TMS Requests 22-24/TMC Requests 21-23).
Defendants further request that the Court, in the alternative
to ruling on the above requested limitations, permit the Rule
30(b)(6) deposition to continue subject to a reservation of
rights whereby objections can be dealt with later should a
party file a subsequent motion. Dkt. 420, at 6.
Defendants provide a set of “red-lined ‘Revised
Notices' that take into account each of their
objections[.]” Dkt. 420, at 5. Dkts. 420-1; and 420-2.
Toyota Defendants further provide that, “[i]f the
Notices were revised in the fashion set forth, the
depositions could ...