*1 Before the Court is Defendant Baylor University's (“Baylor”) motion for protection from Plaintiffs' notice of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. (Mot., Dkt. 483). Baylor makes four requests. First, Baylor seeks protection from inquiries regarding 58 of the 60 topics as stated in Plaintiffs' notice of deposition. (Proposed Order, Dkt. 483-2, at 1). Second, Baylor seeks an order specifically prohibiting “inquiries that would require the witness to identify the documents or data sources that formed the basis of the findings and conclusions in the Findings of Fact document referenced in the notice of deposition.” (Id.). Third, Baylor seeks an order that Baylor is not required to produce three days prior to the deposition any and all documents relied upon to prepare for the deposition, including electronically stored information. (Id. at 2). Fourth, Baylor asks the Court to order Plaintiffs to identify, at least seven days before the deposition, those documents or categories of documents on which they seek testimony from Baylor's corporate representative. (Id.). Having considered the parties' submissions, the record, and the governing law, the Court enters the following order.

The issuance of subpoenas in federal court is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. A court must quash or modify a subpoena that subjects a person to an undue burden. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). Whether a subpoena is reasonable “must be determined according to the facts of the case, such as the party's need for the documents and the nature and importance of the litigation.” Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotations omitted). “To determine whether the subpoena presents an undue burden, we consider the following factors: (1) relevance of the information requested; (2) the need of the party for the documents; (3) the breadth of the document request; (4) the time period covered by the request; (5) the particularity with which the party describes the requested documents; and (6) the burden imposed.” Id.

“The scope of discovery is broad and permits the discovery of ‘any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.’ ” Crosby v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). “A discovery request is relevant when the request seeks admissible evidence or ‘is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Wiwa, 392 F.3d at 820)).

During the deposition, Baylor seeks protection from inquiries regarding topics 1–46 as stated in Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition. (Proposed Order, Dkt. 483-2, at 1). Baylor also seeks an order specifically prohibiting “inquiries that would require the witness to identify the documents or data sources that formed the basis of the findings and conclusions in the Findings of Fact document referenced in the notice of deposition.” (Proposed Order, Dkt. 483-2, at 1).

*2 In an order on August 11, 2017, this Court found that Baylor had not met its burden to establish that the names of individuals Pepper Hamilton interviewed or the documents and data that Baylor produced to Pepper Hamilton revealed attorney work product. (Order, Dkt. 168, at 18).[1] The Court ordered that “Baylor cannot withhold the names of individuals Pepper Hamilton interviewed or the documents and data it produced to Pepper Hamilton.” (Id.). The Court specified the materials related to the Findings of Fact that Baylor could withhold as protected attorney work product: (1) interview memoranda, notes, emails, presentations, and other documents and tangible things that were prepared as part of Pepper Hamilton's investigation, and have not been released, (2) responses to questions that “directly seek the mental impressions of Baylor's counsel,” for example, “identifying which documents and interviews formed the bases [of the Findings of Fact or Recommendations],” (3) documents selected by Pepper Hamilton to be used in an interview, (4) recordings of interviews conducted by Pepper Hamilton, and (5) interview notes made by Pepper Hamilton. (Id. at 19). The Court ordered that Baylor need not produce any of these materials.

Baylor's corporate representative must participate in the forthcoming deposition in a manner consistent with the terms of that order. Baylor is only protected from responding to questions that “directly seek the mental impressions of Baylor's counsel,” such as specifying “which documents and interviews” formed the bases of the Findings of Fact or Recommendations. (Order, Dkt. 168, at 19). Baylor is not protected from providing testimony on the factual bases of the Findings of Fact. “[W]ork product immunity protects only the documents themselves and not the underlying facts.” In re Int'l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235, 1240 (5th Cir. 1982).

Accordingly, the Court will deny Baylor's request to prohibit all “inquiries that would require the witness to identify the documents or data sources that formed the basis of the findings and conclusions in the Findings of Fact document referenced in the notice of deposition.” (Proposed Order, Dkt. 483-2, at 1). Plaintiffs may discover underlying facts; Plaintiffs may not discover the significance that attorneys have attached to the facts, or the conclusions drawn from them. The Court will also deny Baylor protection from inquiries regarding topics 1–46 as stated in the Notice of Deposition. During the deposition, Baylor retains its right to object to specific questions as subject to work product or attorney-client privilege.

Baylor also seeks protection from inquiries regarding topics 47–48, 50–56, 58, 59, and 60 as stated in Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition. The Court finds that Baylor has failed to show that these inquiries are not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” in this case. See Crosby, 647 F.3d at 262. Noting in particular the potential relevance of the inquiries to the Plaintiffs' claims, the need of Plaintiffs to develop evidence from Baylor as a corporate entity, and “the nature and importance of the litigation,” see Wiwa, 392 F.3d at 818, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' inquiries regarding topics 47–48, 50–56, 58, 59, and 60 do not present an undue burden.

Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition “request[s] that the deponent produce by three days prior to the date of the deposition any and all documents relied on to prepare for testimony as to matters within their knowledge and as to matters known by or reasonably available.” (Notice, Dkt. 483-1, at 2). Baylor seeks an order that Baylor is not required to produce three days prior to the deposition any and all documents relied upon to prepare for the deposition, including electronically stored information. (Mot., Dkt. 483, at 2). The Court appreciates that this production would likely constitute a significant volume of documents. Considering the breadth of the document request, and noting that Baylor has already produced a significant volume of documents to Plaintiffs, the Court agrees that producing duplicates would constitute an undue burden. For documents already produced to Plaintiffs, Baylor need not produce the documents a second time, but shall identify them by Bates number three days before the deposition. “[M]odification of a subpoena is preferable to quashing it outright.” Advanced Tech. Incubator, Inc. v. Sharp Corp., 263 F.R.D. 395, 399 (W.D. Tex. 2009) (quoting Wiwa, 392 F.3d at 818).

*3 Because the purpose of the subpoena duces tecum is for Baylor to provide testimony and documents to Plaintiffs, the Court declines Baylor's request to place the burden on Plaintiffs to identify documents or categories of documents on which Plaintiffs seek testimony in advance of the deposition. The Court finds that modifying the subpoena to require Baylor to produce Bates numbers rather than actual documents adequately remedies any undue burden posed by Plaintiffs' subpoena.

Accordingly, Baylor's Motion for Protection, (Dkt. 483), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, consistent with the terms of this Order. Specifically:

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Baylor's corporate representative shall appear for the deposition on October 15, 2018, or on a future date by mutual agreement of the parties in order to allow a reasonable time to comply with the terms of this order. The deposition shall occur on or before October 31, 2018.

SIGNED on October 11, 2018.