Ferenbach, Cam, United States Magistrate Judge
This opinion is one of four discovery opinions issued in this case. The court heard two of the motions (including this one) on the same day, and issued separate written opinions for each motion, again, on the same day following the hearing. On this motion for costs by plaintiff, the court refused to grant costs to plaintiff for depositions when defendant produced a corporate designee with inadequate knowledge of company’s systems per the deposition notice.
This action arose from allegations of widespread discrimination and sexual harassment by eleven female employees of the defendants. Although the opinion presumes familiarity with the facts, a thorough background of the case is provided in Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., 2011 WL 5854658.
Plaintiffs moved to compel 30 (b) (6) deposition testimony of defendants’ corporate designee on defendant’s protocol for storing and preserving ESI. Defendants agreed, but then provided a designee that, at the deposition, was not knowledgeable on the topic of electronically stored information, was unprepared for the deposition, and that defendants only used that designee to, according to the plaintiff, “deliberately thwart plaintiff’s discovery efforts.”
Plaintiffs sought to depose a new designee knowledgeable on the topic of electronically stored information. Further, the plaintiffs requested that defendants be responsible for the costs of deposing the ineffective designee and the next designee. Defendants argued that its designee’s responses were adequate and that plaintiffs’ questions were outside the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) notice.
The court noted that both parties’ arguments had merit and determined a new deposition or an award of costs was not warranted. The court held that the plaintiffs were “entitled to know what kinds and categories of ESI defendants’ employees were instructed to preserve and collect, and what specific actions they were instructed to undertake to that end.” The court ordered the defendants to disclose information surrounding the litigation hold and to identify the persons to whom legal hold notices were sent as well as the types of ESI that were identified in the notice.
v.
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants
Counsel
Edward Chapin, Jill Sullivan, Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan LLP, San Diego, CA, Felicia Medina, Stefanie Roemer, Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, Washington, DC, Vincent J. Aiello, The Law Office of Vincent J. Aiello Chtd., Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff.Bruce C. Young, Deborah L. Westbrook, Patrick H. Hicks, Wendy M. Krincek, Jeanine Olivares Navarro, Kristina N. Escamilla, Deborah L. Westbrook, Littler Mendelson, PC, Las Vegas, NV, Patrick N. Chapin, Patrick N. Chapin, Ltd., Henderson, NV, for Defendant.