1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SF 2402 LLC, Case No.: 21-cv-906-GPC-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 13 v. B.F.B., INC. d/b/a BRADFORD FOX BUILDERS’ MOTION FOR 14 B.F.B., INC. dba BRADFORD FOX PROTECTIVE ORDER BUILDERS AND DOES 1 THROUGH 15 10, [Dkt. No. 75] 16 Defendants. 17 B.F.B., INC. dba BRADFORD FOX 18 BUILDERS, 19 Third-Party Plaintiff, 20 v. 21 ELECTRIC LEE, a California Corporation, et al. 22 Third-Party Defendants. 23

24 Before the Court is Defendant B.F.B., Inc. d/b/a Bradford Fox Builders’ 25 (“Defendant”) Motion for Protective Order (“Motion”). Dkt. No. 75. Plaintiff SF 2402 26 LLC (“Plaintiff”) opposes the Motion. Dkt. No. 76. The Court DENIES the Motion for 27 the reasons set forth below. 28 / / / 1 Defendant seeks a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to 2 prevent Plaintiff from deposing a company designee under Rule 30(b)(6). Defendant’s 3 Motion largely rests on its assertion that a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition would be burdensome, 4 cumulative, and duplicative because the two potential designees, Bradford Fox and Heidi 5 Nielsen, have already been deposed in their individual capacities for an entire day, and 6 were asked questions regarding topics that are contained in the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition 7 notice. Plaintiff asserts that Rule 30(b)(6) depositions are permissible even where the 8 corporate designee has previously been deposed in their individual capacity regarding 9 subject matter within the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. 10 “A deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) is substantially different from a witness’s 11 deposition as an individual. A 30(b)(6) witness testifies as a representative of the entity, 12 his answers bind the entity and he is responsible for providing all the relevant information 13 known or reasonably available to the entity.” Sabre v. First Dominion Capital, LLC, No. 14 01CIV2145BSJHBP,

at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2001). The Rule 15 30(b)(6) deposition is “a separate deposition that probes the knowledge of the entity and 16 not the personal knowledge of the individual testifying.” Id. at *1. 17 “[C]ourts have rejected the argument that a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is unnecessary 18 or cumulative simply because individual deponents . . . have already testified about the 19 topics noticed in the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice.” Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money 20 Market 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer,

(N.D. Cal. 2012); see Calvary 21 Chapel San Jose v. Cody, No. 20-cv-03794-BLF (VKD),

at *2 (N.D. 22 Cal. Sept. 7, 2022) (“The mere fact that individual witnesses have testified regarding 23 subject matter that is within the scope of the notice does not make the County’s Rule 24 30(b)(6) deposition notice unreasonably duplicative.”) As the court recognized in Mitchell 25 Eng’g v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, No. C 08-04022 SI,

at *1 26 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010), “[e]ven if the general topics to be addressed at the 30(b)(6) 27 deposition will overlap to some extent, the questions asked and the answers given might 28 not.” Therefore, a protective order is only appropriate when there is evidence that a party 1 misusing the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to harass or unreasonably burden the opposing 2 ||party, or to subject the opposing party to unreasonably burdensome, cumulative, or 3 || duplicative discovery. See Louisiana Pac. Corp.,

. 4 The Court finds that a protective order is not appropriate under the circumstances 5 presented here. Although some of the topics upon which Mr. Fox or Ms. Nielsen may 6 || testify as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee may overlap with their depositions in their individual 7 || capacities, Defendant has not established that the testimony will be unreasonably 8 duplicative. Moreover, Plaintiff represents that the topics at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition 9 || will include issues pertaining to the EMP Consultants report that were not covered at the 10 individual deposition of Mr. Fox. Defendant contends that the topics pertaining to the EMP 11 |}Consultants report are the subject of expert testimony; however, that is not a basis to 12 preclude the deposition altogether, and this Order does not preclude Defendant from 13 || objecting on appropriate grounds to any deposition question. 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: January 5, 2023 17 18 Tbe Li 19 / BthtO LS ANC 20 Honorable David D. Leshner United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28