Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Hackett Feinberg
-
Motion | Filed: May 06, 2024 | Entered: May 06, 2024 In Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation
Contract: Other | Massachusetts
Miscellaneous Relief
MOTION to Appear by Telephone for the May 16, 2024 Case Management Conference re 2017 Memorandum & ORDER,,,,, Set Hearings,,,, by AlliedWallet, Inc., Mohammad Diab, Ahmad Khawaja.(Gordon, Todd)
-
Order | Filed: May 06, 2024 | Entered: May 06, 2024 In Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation
Contract: Other | Massachusetts
Order on Motion for Protective Order
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER granting Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s (1930) EMERGENCY MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Improper Rule 30(b)(6) Notice in case 4:14-md-02566-NMG.
&nbsp Because oral argument is not necessary to resolve this motion, Plaintiff's request for oral argument is DENIED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) provides that a party must obtain leave of court to conduct a deposition "when the deponent has already been deposed in the case." In the First Circuit, this rule applies to Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. In Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Signal Composites, Inc., 244 F.3d 189, 192-93 (1st Cir. 2001), the First Circuit affirmed the order of a District Judge of this court who quashed a subpoena requiring a second deposition of a non-party who had previously been deposed, holding that "[b]ecause this second Rule 30(b)(6) subpoena was issued to [the deponent corporation] without leave of court it was invalid." Id. at 192. The First Circuit's ruling in Ameristar is consistent with the advisory committee notes, which state, in pertinent part, that "[a] deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) should, for purposes of this limit [in Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(ii)], be treated as a single deposition even though more than one person may be designated to testify." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A) advisory committees note to1993 amendment.
&nbsp After extensive negotiations about the contents of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") produced two Rule 30(b)(6) deponents who, between them, testified for some fourteen hours in Jacksonville, Florida on November 29, 2023, and in Roanoke, Virginia on December 19, 2023 (Dkt. No. 1931 at 3-4; Dkt. No. 1930-5 at 2). Wells Fargo met its obligation to provide testimony in response to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Notice of Corporate Representative Deposition of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Third Notice"). See Infernal Tech., LLC v. Epic Games, Inc., 339 F.R.D. 226, 230 (E.D.N.C. 2021) (Rule 30(d)(1)'s durational limit of one day of 7 hours applies to each Rule 30(b)(6) designee) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1) advisory committee notes to 2000 amendment).
&nbsp Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Notice of Corporate Representative Deposition of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Fourth Notice") purported to notice a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Wells Fargo on February 20, 2024, in Orlando, Florida. This Fourth Notice included more than 20 topics that did not appear in the Third Amended Notice (Dkt. Nos. 1930-5; Dkt. No. 1930-12 at 30-32). Plaintiff was not entitled to notice a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Wells Fargo without a stipulation of the parties there was none or leave of court. See Ameristar Jet Charter, 244 F.3d at 192; Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a)(2)(A)(ii). Plaintiff did not seek leave to court to take a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Wells Fargo.
&nbsp Plaintiff has pointed to no support for his position that, because he announced that he was keeping the deposition open at the conclusion of Carla Shepherd's December 19, 2023, turn as a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent for Wells Fargo, the Fourth Notice was for a continuation of the deposition he had previously noticed. The argument defies logic and the plain language of the applicable federal rules of civil procedure. The Fourth Notice included added more than 20 topics that did not appear in the Third Notice and provided that the deposition would be convened in a location different than the locations at which Wells Fargo's Rule 30(b)(6) deponents testified on November 29 and December 19, 2023. If all a lawyer had to do to circumvent the one-deposition limit in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) was to announce at the end of the day that he was keeping a deposition open, the rule's limit would lose all force. Furthermore, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), Plaintiff failed and refused to confer with Well Fargo, N.A. "[b]efore or promptly after" serving the Fourth Notice (Dkt. No. 1930 at 3-5). The court doubts that Plaintiff has a genuine basis for complaining about the Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of Wells Fargo's Rule 30(b)(6) designees, but if he did so, his remedy was under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Plaintiff is not entitled to arrogate to himself the right to notice a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. in violation of the applicable federal rules of civil procedure. For these reasons, Wells Fargo Bank N.A.'s Emergency Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Improper Rule 30(b)(6) Notice is GRANTED. It is so ordered.
Associated Cases: 4:14-md-02566-NMG et al. (Rivera, Melissa)
-
Order | Filed: May 06, 2024 | Entered: May 06, 2024 Griffith v. Merrill et al
Securities/Commodities | Massachusetts
Order on Motion for Protective Order
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER granting Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s (1930) EMERGENCY MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Improper Rule 30(b)(6) Notice in case 4:14-md-02566-NMG.
&nbsp Because oral argument is not necessary to resolve this motion, Plaintiff's request for oral argument is DENIED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) provides that a party must obtain leave of court to conduct a deposition "when the deponent has already been deposed in the case." In the First Circuit, this rule applies to Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. In Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Signal Composites, Inc., 244 F.3d 189, 192-93 (1st Cir. 2001), the First Circuit affirmed the order of a District Judge of this court who quashed a subpoena requiring a second deposition of a non-party who had previously been deposed, holding that "[b]ecause this second Rule 30(b)(6) subpoena was issued to [the deponent corporation] without leave of court it was invalid." Id. at 192. The First Circuit's ruling in Ameristar is consistent with the advisory committee notes, which state, in pertinent part, that "[a] deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) should, for purposes of this limit [in Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(ii)], be treated as a single deposition even though more than one person may be designated to testify." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A) advisory committees note to1993 amendment.
&nbsp After extensive negotiations about the contents of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") produced two Rule 30(b)(6) deponents who, between them, testified for some fourteen hours in Jacksonville, Florida on November 29, 2023, and in Roanoke, Virginia on December 19, 2023 (Dkt. No. 1931 at 3-4; Dkt. No. 1930-5 at 2). Wells Fargo met its obligation to provide testimony in response to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Notice of Corporate Representative Deposition of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Third Notice"). See Infernal Tech., LLC v. Epic Games, Inc., 339 F.R.D. 226, 230 (E.D.N.C. 2021) (Rule 30(d)(1)'s durational limit of one day of 7 hours applies to each Rule 30(b)(6) designee) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1) advisory committee notes to 2000 amendment).
&nbsp Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Notice of Corporate Representative Deposition of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Fourth Notice") purported to notice a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Wells Fargo on February 20, 2024, in Orlando, Florida. This Fourth Notice included more than 20 topics that did not appear in the Third Amended Notice (Dkt. Nos. 1930-5; Dkt. No. 1930-12 at 30-32). Plaintiff was not entitled to notice a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Wells Fargo without a stipulation of the parties there was none or leave of court. See Ameristar Jet Charter, 244 F.3d at 192; Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(a)(2)(A)(ii). Plaintiff did not seek leave to court to take a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Wells Fargo.
&nbsp Plaintiff has pointed to no support for his position that, because he announced that he was keeping the deposition open at the conclusion of Carla Shepherd's December 19, 2023, turn as a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent for Wells Fargo, the Fourth Notice was for a continuation of the deposition he had previously noticed. The argument defies logic and the plain language of the applicable federal rules of civil procedure. The Fourth Notice included added more than 20 topics that did not appear in the Third Notice and provided that the deposition would be convened in a location different than the locations at which Wells Fargo's Rule 30(b)(6) deponents testified on November 29 and December 19, 2023. If all a lawyer had to do to circumvent the one-deposition limit in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) was to announce at the end of the day that he was keeping a deposition open, the rule's limit would lose all force. Furthermore, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), Plaintiff failed and refused to confer with Well Fargo, N.A. "[b]efore or promptly after" serving the Fourth Notice (Dkt. No. 1930 at 3-5). The court doubts that Plaintiff has a genuine basis for complaining about the Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of Wells Fargo's Rule 30(b)(6) designees, but if he did so, his remedy was under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Plaintiff is not entitled to arrogate to himself the right to notice a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. in violation of the applicable federal rules of civil procedure. For these reasons, Wells Fargo Bank N.A.'s Emergency Motion for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Improper Rule 30(b)(6) Notice is GRANTED. It is so ordered.
Associated Cases: 4:14-md-02566-NMG et al. (Rivera, Melissa)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login