THIS MATTER comes before the Discovery Master on application filed by Plaintiffs addressed to a dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs Praxair, Inc., Praxair Distribution, Inc. (PDI) and Praxair Distribution Mid-Atlantic, LLC (PDMA) (collectively, “Praxair”), regarding a set of topics to be covered in a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a Praxair corporate designee. As Plaintiffs accurately note, the parties agree that this deposition occur, but disagree as to its scope and subject matter. Plaintiffs’ proposed topics are set out in Exhibit A to plaintiffs’ moving papers, while a red-line version that identifies Praxair’s objections is attached as Exhibit C.

The subject dispute largely focuses on plaintiffs’ claims of spoliation of documents with respect to two Praxair employees, Michael Skrjanc and Erika Schreckengost. Although Plaintiffs’ proposed list also originally included a topic relating to Praxair’s CEO Stephen Angel, Plaintiffs are no longer pursuing that topic at this time, and hence | have deleted it from the attached list of topics that | have approved.

Briefly summarizing the main areas of contention, Praxair disputes the time frame requested by Plaintiffs with respect to Mr. Skrjanc’s laptop computer, and also objects to Plaintiffs’ use of terms such as “destruction” and “deleted.” Praxair asserts that emails are purged after 365 days unless a litigation hold is issued. In this case the litigation hold order, which | have previously reviewed in camera, was issued on April 14, 2014. Accordingly, | have limited the commencement of the time frame to April 14, 2013, rather than the October 4, 2011 date requested by Plaintiffs. | have also modified the end date and inserted more neutral language to address Praxair’s opposition to the objectionable terms.

The balance of Praxair’s objections primarily relate to topics addressed to various of its practices and procedures. Plaintiffs candidly concede that some of their proposed topics touch on areas related to Praxair’s preparation for litigation. | have previously denied Plaintiffs’ request that Praxair produce its litigation hold order, and after having reviewed it in camera | find no basis to now alter that determination. | also find that many of Plaintiffs’ requests go beyond what is reasonably necessary to explore their spoliation claims, at least at this juncture. Consequently, | have modified or stricken several of Plaintiffs’ proposed topics on this basis. Therefore,

IT IS on this 1st day of April, 2020

ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of this Order, Praxair shall produce, pursuant to J F.R.C.P.30(b)(6), a corporate designee or designees to be deposed on the topics annexed hereto.