*1 The Magistrate Judge has read and considered all documents filed in connection with “Plaintiff Metricolor's Motion to Compel for an Order Compelling Further 30(B)(6) Testimony of L'Oreal and Sanctions” (“the Motion”), filed August 5, 2022 (including the full October 1, 2021 deposition transcript and the other documents previously filed conditionally under seal). The August 26, 2022 hearing date is vacated. The Magistrate Judge has taken the Motion under submission without oral argument.

The Magistrate Judge has considered all of the parties' arguments. The Magistrate Judge addresses the parties' principal arguments below.

Defendants argue that the Motion should be denied as untimely. This argument is rejected. The hearing on the pending motion for summary judgment is scheduled to occur in October. There exists sufficient time to take another Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, if appropriate. Defendants have failed to demonstrate any significant prejudice resulting from Plaintiff's allegedly unreasonable delay in pursuing the Motion. Additional costs potentially resulting from inefficiencies in re-preparation for the deposition would not provide a sufficient reason to deny the Motion.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff committed misconduct in connection with the production of certain documents. This argument constitutes a non sequitur in the context of the present Motion. See, e.g., Harrison v. Comm'r Gary Lanigan, 2016 WL 3626524, at *2 (D. N.J. July 1, 2016) (“there is no place for ‘tit-for-tat’ in a court of law. One party's failure to comply with certain rules and procedures is not an excuse for another party to do the same”); Genentech, Inc. v. Trustees of University of Pennsylvania, 2011 WL 7074208, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2011) (“A party may not excuse its failure to comply with discovery obligations by claiming that its opposing party is similarly delinquent. Nor may a party condition its compliance with discovery obligations on receiving discovery from its opponent.”) (citations and quotations omitted).

Plaintiff argues that the Rule 30(b)(6) witness appearing for the October 1, 2021 deposition was inadequately prepared. Under all of the attendant circumstances, including the conclusions counsel for Defendants reasonably inferred from the September 3, 2021 meet and confer regarding the proper scope of the deposition topics, the witness' preparation appears to have been reasonably adequate. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the contrary, and has failed to demonstrate any significant deficiency in the deposition testimony resulting from the allegedly inadequate preparation of the witness.

Plaintiff argues that counsel for Defendants improperly instructed the witness not to answer numerous questions based on objections that the questions were “beyond the scope” of the topics. Counsel defending a deposition properly may instruct the witness to refuse to answer a question “only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). Thus, an instruction to a Rule 30(b)(6) witness not to answer a question based merely on a “beyond the scope” objection is improper. See, e.g., ZCT Systems Group, Inc. v. FlightSafety Intern., 2010 WL 1257824, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 26, 2010). However, during the October 1, 2021 deposition, the witness did not refuse to answer questions based on (implied or express) instructions by Defendants' counsel not to answer questions as “beyond the scope.” The witness did refuse to answer certain questions based on instructions by Defendants' counsel not to reveal attorney-client privileged communications, but such instructions were proper under Rule 30(d)(3).

*2 Plaintiff argues that counsel for Defendants attempted to “ ‘run out the clock’ on the seven-hour time limit” of the deposition by interposing numerous lengthy and improper objections. “An objection must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). Some of the objections interposed by counsel for Defendants were argumentative, suggestive and/or less than concise. If such improper conduct by counsel for Defendants had constituted the only reason counsel for Plaintiff failed to conclude the October 1, 2021 deposition within the time allotted, the Magistrate Judge would require the convening of a second deposition for a compensatory period of time. However, the Magistrate Judge declines to do so because counsel for Plaintiff was also at fault for significant time misspent during the October 1, 2021 deposition. Counsel for Plaintiff improperly and unproductively engaged in argument regarding the propriety of the witness' answers and the propriety of the objections made by counsel for Defendants. It appears that, but for the time misspent in such argument, the deposition could have been concluded on October 1, 2021. In fact, counsel for Plaintiff represented near the end of the deposition that he then had only approximately 30 more minutes of intended questioning.

Accordingly, the Motion is denied. All parties' requests for sanctions are also denied.