Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Lisa Rouse, Juston Rouse, Jenna Drouin, Case No. 22-CV-02173 (JMB/JFD)
and Nicholas Drouin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, ORDER
v.
H.B. Fuller Company and H.B. Fuller
Construction Products Inc.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ request for Fees and Costs (Dkt. No.
597)made pursuant to the Court’s June 25, 2025 Order (Dkt. No. 584). That Order granted
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel H.B. Fuller Company (“HBF Co.”) to produce an adequately
prepared corporate representative for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(b)(6) because the Court found that “HBF Co. and its counsel did not prepare their
witness to respond to the topics HBF Co. was legally obligated to discuss, and the witness,
Cheryl Reinitz, did not take steps necessary to familiarize herself with the case.” (June 25,
2025 Order 18, Dkt. No. 584.) The Court has said all that needs to be said about that motion
and this order limits itself to accurately assessing, and reducing to monetary terms, the
harm caused by that lack of preparation.
The harms identified in the Court’s June 25 Order were of three types: 1) taking Ms.
Reinitz’s deposition on April 10, 2025; 2) filing and arguing the Motion to Compel (Dkt.
No. 493); and 3) taking the additional deposition ordered by the Court. (June 25, 2025
Order 24, Dkt. No. 584.) To reduce those harms to a monetary figure, this order assesses
the reasonableness of the fees requested by Plaintiffs in their Notice (Dkt. No. 597).
LEGAL STANDARDS
If a motion to compel is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be
heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or
attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred
in making the motion, including attorney’s fees,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), unless “the
movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or
discovery without court action,” “the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or
objection was substantially justified,” or “other circumstances make an award of expenses
unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)–(iii). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 also
provides that, where a court determines that a party or counsel has disobeyed an order of
the court, “the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or
both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).
The Court also has the inherent authority to award attorneys’ fees “against a party
which has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’” United
States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 403 F.3d 558, 564 (8th Cir. 2005) (quotation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Lamb Eng'g & Const. Co. v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist.,103 F.3d 1422, 1435
(8th Cir. 1997). “The amount of the fee, of course, must be determined on the facts of each case.” Hensley v. Eckerhart,461 U.S. 424, 429
(1983). The Court
addresses in turn each of the three categories of expense listed above.
DISCUSSION
Generally, Plaintiffs’ counsel work at two firms: the Cincinnati, Ohio firm of Vorys,
Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (“Vorys”); and the Minneapolis, Minnesota firm of
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”). Vorys attorneys serve as lead counsel for
Plaintiffs, with LGN attorneys serving as local counsel. (Asp Decl. 2, Dkt. No. 599.) Vorys
attorneys on this case include David Hine, a partner at the firm, and associates Petra
Bergman and Michael Soder. (Id.) These attorneys bill their time at $695, $495, and $430
per hour, respectively. (Id.) LGN attorneys include David Asp, a partner, and David Hahn,
an associate. They bill their time at $625 and $375 per hour, respectively. (Id.) HBF Co.
does not challenge these rates themselves, and the Court therefore does not question their
reasonableness.
HBF Co. objects to the Court awarding fees and costs to Plaintiffs in relation to this
matter. In responding to Plaintiffs’ fee request, HBF Co. points out that in Plaintiffs’
original motion for a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of HBF Co., they expressly stated
that they were not seeking sanctions in connection to it. (HBF Co.’s Resp. 3, Dkt. No. 615
(citing Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. 2, Dkt. No. 497).) It also argues that “although the Court
disagreed with its approach to preparing its 30(b)(6) witness, that approach was supported
by legal authority and was a reasonable effort to navigate the unique and challenging
circumstances of this case.” (Id. at 2.) The Court considers these well-taken arguments,
along with the more specific arguments discussed below, in crafting what it determines is
a reasonable award of fees in the broader context of both parties’ behavior through the
litigation of this case.
I. The April 10, 2025 Deposition of Cheryl Reinitz
In their request for fees and costs, Plaintiffs’ counsel petitions the Court for
$69,305.07 for work performed by Mr. Hine and Ms. Bergman for the deposition of Cheryl
Reinitz, the first HBF Co. 30(b)(6) deponent, who the Court found to be inadequately
prepared for that deposition. (See Pls.’ Notice 3, 5, Dkt. No. 597.) This figure includes
“$60,226.00 for 94.80 hours spent by Mr. Hine and Ms. Bergman” (Hine Decl. 4, Dkt. No.
598), “$2,396.52 on travel expenses for Mr. Hine and Ms. Bergman to attend the
Deposition,” (Id. at 7), and “$6,682.55 for court reporter and videographer fees during the
Deposition.” (Id. at 6.)
The Court appreciates this breakdown of fees and costs provided by Plaintiffs, but
it will not require Defendants to compensate Plaintiffs for this amount because this number
represents the fees Plaintiffs would have reasonably incurred even in the absence of HBF
Co.’s unpreparedness for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The Court will only consider fees
and costs incurred beyond this number as attributable to HBF Co.’s failure to properly
prepare Ms. Reinitz for the original Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
II. The Motion to Compel Adequately Prepared Corporate Deponent (Dkt. No.
493)
Plaintiffs’ counsel petitions the Court for $36,394.00 for work performed by Mr.
Hine, Ms. Bergman, and Mr. Soder in drafting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel an Adequate
Rule 30(b)(6) Deponent and the associated briefing, as well as preparing for, traveling to,
and participating in the hearing on the Motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel also requests $865.62 in
travel expenses incurred in attending the May 16, 2025 Case Management Conference and
Motion Hearing, a number which represents one third of the travel expenses Plaintiffs’
counsel incurred in traveling to St. Paul because “there were two other issues to be
addressed at that May 16, 2025, hearing, [so ]Plaintiffs only attribute one-third of those
costs to the Motion.” (Pls.’ Notice 5, n.2, Dkt. No. 597.) Accordingly, the total amount of
compensation Plaintiffs’ counsel requests related to the Motion to Compel is $37,258.62.
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s billing records indicate that Mr. Hine recorded 6.5 hours for
“[t]raveling to Minnesota for hearing” ($4,517.50) and 7.2 hours for “[p]reparing for
hearing” ($5,004.00) on May 15. (Hine Decl. Ex. 1, Dkt. No. 598-1.) Also on May 15, Ms.
Bergman recorded 9 hours for “[t]ravel to and prepare for the hearing,” equivalent to
$4,455.00. (Id.) The day of the hearing, May 16, Mr. Hine recorded 6.5 hours for
“preparing for and participating in case management conference” and 5.6 hours for
“[t]raveling home from Minnesota,” and Ms. Bergman recorded 9.5 hours for
“[p]repar[ing] for the hearings[,] [a]ttend[ing] hearing[,]… and travel home” (Id.)
The Court declines to order Defendants to compensate Plaintiffs for any travel-
related costs or fees incurred in traveling to St. Paul for the Case Management Conference
in May. As HBF Co. notes, Plaintiffs’ counsel would have had to travel to St. Paul for the
Case Management Conference whether or not they brought the Motion to Compel. (HBF
Co.’s Resp. 4, Dkt. No. 615.) The Court will, however award fees and costs directly
associated with the motion, including one third of the time spent preparing for and
participating in the hearing. Reviewing the submitted billing records, the Court concludes
that Plaintiffs’ counsel is entitled to compensation for $5,004.00 for Mr. Hine’s work on
May 15, 2025 and $4,517.50 for his work on May 16, 2025. As for Ms. Bergman’s time,
Plaintiffs’ counsel is entitled to compensation for $1,237.50 for her work on the 15th and
$1,930.50 for her work on the 16th. Plaintiffs’ counsel is also entitled to compensation for
the $22,699.00 for the 44.9 hours spent by Mr. Hine and Mr. Soder in drafting the briefing
for the Motion to Compel. In sum, the amount owed to Plaintiffs’ counsel in connection to
the Motion to Compel is $35,387.50.
III. The July 17, 2025 Deposition of Traci Jensen
Plaintiffs’ counsel requests $34,857.50 in fees and costs incurred in taking the July
17, 2025 Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Traci Jensen, ordered by the Court on June 25, 2025.
That request includes $30,837.50 for 50.50 hours of work, divided between Mr. Hine and
Ms. Bergman, of the Vorys firm, and $4,020.45 for costs related to transcription and
recording services. (Pls’ Second Fee Petition 3, Dkt. No. 623.) Plaintiffs’ counsel is entitled
to compensation for the entirety of the $4,020.45 in transcription and recording costs, as
these costs would not have been incurred if HBF Co. was properly prepared for its first
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
As to attorneys’ fees accrued in preparation for the second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition,
the fee request will be granted in part. HBF Co. argues that much of the work time claimed
by Plaintiffs in their request was unnecessarily duplicative of work that had been done to
prepare for the H.B. Fuller Construction Products deposition and the original HBF Co.
deposition. (HBF Co.’s Resp. 4, Dkt. No. 615.) While the Court recognizes that such work
may have been duplicative, it is not unreasonable to expect that attorneys would need to
spend at least some time refamiliarizing themselves with the issues after a gap of three
months between the first and second 30(b)(6) depositions. However, the billing entries
submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel in this request occasionally commingle work directly
attributable to the deposition with other work on this case that likely would have been
incurred without the Court’s June 25, 2025 Order. (See Hine Decl. Ex. 1, Dkt. No. 624-1.)
For example, one entry includes “[c]ompiling documents for use in 30(b)(6) deposition
addressing particular defenses raised in Defendants’ motion to deny class certification,”
and another includes “review[ing] and analyz[ing] the documents used in support of the
motion to deny class certification to identify additional exhibits for use in the renewed
30(b)(6) deposition.” (Id.) This work, while relevant to the 30(b)(6) deposition ordered by
the Court, will also be relevant to Plaintiffs’ likely motion for class certification later in the
case because Defendant’s motion to deny class certification was denied as premature. (See
Aug. 15, 2025 Order, Dkt. No. 620.) After excising one half of each of the entries where
such commingling occurred, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel incurred $26,351.50 in
attorneys’ fees related to the second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of HBF Co.1 In sum, the
amount owed to Plaintiffs’ counsel in connection to the Second Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
of HBF Co. is $30,371.95.
1 To arrive at this figure, the Court reduced time attributed to commingled entries by one
half and multiplied the sum of remaining time for each attorney by the attorney’s billing
rate, as identified in the Plaintiffs’ papers.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the foregoing and on all of the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ Requests for Attorneys’ Fees
(Dkt. Nos. 597, 623) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
1) Defendants will pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $35,387.50 for attorneys’ fees and costs
associated with Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Adequately Prepared Rule
30(b)(6) Corporate Representative (Dkt. No. 493); and
2) Defendants will pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $30,371.95 for attorneys’ fees and costs
associated with HBF Co.’s Second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
Date: October 10, 2025 s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Lisa Rouse, Juston Rouse, Jenna Drouin, Case No. 22-CV-02173 (JMB/JFD)
and Nicholas Drouin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, ORDER
v.
H.B. Fuller Company and H.B. Fuller
Construction Products Inc.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ request for Fees and Costs (Dkt. No.
597)made pursuant to the Court’s June 25, 2025 Order (Dkt. No. 584). That Order granted
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel H.B. Fuller Company (“HBF Co.”) to produce an adequately
prepared corporate representative for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(b)(6) because the Court found that “HBF Co. and its counsel did not prepare their
witness to respond to the topics HBF Co. was legally obligated to discuss, and the witness,
Cheryl Reinitz, did not take steps necessary to familiarize herself with the case.” (June 25,
2025 Order 18, Dkt. No. 584.) The Court has said all that needs to be said about that motion
and this order limits itself to accurately assessing, and reducing to monetary terms, the
harm caused by that lack of preparation.
The harms identified in the Court’s June 25 Order were of three types: 1) taking Ms.
Reinitz’s deposition on April 10, 2025; 2) filing and arguing the Motion to Compel (Dkt.
No. 493); and 3) taking the additional deposition ordered by the Court. (June 25, 2025
Order 24, Dkt. No. 584.) To reduce those harms to a monetary figure, this order assesses
the reasonableness of the fees requested by Plaintiffs in their Notice (Dkt. No. 597).
LEGAL STANDARDS
If a motion to compel is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be
heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or
attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred
in making the motion, including attorney’s fees,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), unless “the
movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or
discovery without court action,” “the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or
objection was substantially justified,” or “other circumstances make an award of expenses
unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)–(iii). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 also
provides that, where a court determines that a party or counsel has disobeyed an order of
the court, “the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or
both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).
The Court also has the inherent authority to award attorneys’ fees “against a party
which has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’” United
States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 403 F.3d 558, 564 (8th Cir. 2005) (quotation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Lamb Eng'g & Const. Co. v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist.,103 F.3d 1422, 1435
(8th Cir. 1997). “The amount of the fee, of course, must be determined on the facts of each case.” Hensley v. Eckerhart,461 U.S. 424, 429
(1983). The Court
addresses in turn each of the three categories of expense listed above.
DISCUSSION
Generally, Plaintiffs’ counsel work at two firms: the Cincinnati, Ohio firm of Vorys,
Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (“Vorys”); and the Minneapolis, Minnesota firm of
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”). Vorys attorneys serve as lead counsel for
Plaintiffs, with LGN attorneys serving as local counsel. (Asp Decl. 2, Dkt. No. 599.) Vorys
attorneys on this case include David Hine, a partner at the firm, and associates Petra
Bergman and Michael Soder. (Id.) These attorneys bill their time at $695, $495, and $430
per hour, respectively. (Id.) LGN attorneys include David Asp, a partner, and David Hahn,
an associate. They bill their time at $625 and $375 per hour, respectively. (Id.) HBF Co.
does not challenge these rates themselves, and the Court therefore does not question their
reasonableness.
HBF Co. objects to the Court awarding fees and costs to Plaintiffs in relation to this
matter. In responding to Plaintiffs’ fee request, HBF Co. points out that in Plaintiffs’
original motion for a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of HBF Co., they expressly stated
that they were not seeking sanctions in connection to it. (HBF Co.’s Resp. 3, Dkt. No. 615
(citing Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. 2, Dkt. No. 497).) It also argues that “although the Court
disagreed with its approach to preparing its 30(b)(6) witness, that approach was supported
by legal authority and was a reasonable effort to navigate the unique and challenging
circumstances of this case.” (Id. at 2.) The Court considers these well-taken arguments,
along with the more specific arguments discussed below, in crafting what it determines is
a reasonable award of fees in the broader context of both parties’ behavior through the
litigation of this case.
I. The April 10, 2025 Deposition of Cheryl Reinitz
In their request for fees and costs, Plaintiffs’ counsel petitions the Court for
$69,305.07 for work performed by Mr. Hine and Ms. Bergman for the deposition of Cheryl
Reinitz, the first HBF Co. 30(b)(6) deponent, who the Court found to be inadequately
prepared for that deposition. (See Pls.’ Notice 3, 5, Dkt. No. 597.) This figure includes
“$60,226.00 for 94.80 hours spent by Mr. Hine and Ms. Bergman” (Hine Decl. 4, Dkt. No.
598), “$2,396.52 on travel expenses for Mr. Hine and Ms. Bergman to attend the
Deposition,” (Id. at 7), and “$6,682.55 for court reporter and videographer fees during the
Deposition.” (Id. at 6.)
The Court appreciates this breakdown of fees and costs provided by Plaintiffs, but
it will not require Defendants to compensate Plaintiffs for this amount because this number
represents the fees Plaintiffs would have reasonably incurred even in the absence of HBF
Co.’s unpreparedness for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The Court will only consider fees
and costs incurred beyond this number as attributable to HBF Co.’s failure to properly
prepare Ms. Reinitz for the original Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
II. The Motion to Compel Adequately Prepared Corporate Deponent (Dkt. No.
493)
Plaintiffs’ counsel petitions the Court for $36,394.00 for work performed by Mr.
Hine, Ms. Bergman, and Mr. Soder in drafting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel an Adequate
Rule 30(b)(6) Deponent and the associated briefing, as well as preparing for, traveling to,
and participating in the hearing on the Motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel also requests $865.62 in
travel expenses incurred in attending the May 16, 2025 Case Management Conference and
Motion Hearing, a number which represents one third of the travel expenses Plaintiffs’
counsel incurred in traveling to St. Paul because “there were two other issues to be
addressed at that May 16, 2025, hearing, [so ]Plaintiffs only attribute one-third of those
costs to the Motion.” (Pls.’ Notice 5, n.2, Dkt. No. 597.) Accordingly, the total amount of
compensation Plaintiffs’ counsel requests related to the Motion to Compel is $37,258.62.
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s billing records indicate that Mr. Hine recorded 6.5 hours for
“[t]raveling to Minnesota for hearing” ($4,517.50) and 7.2 hours for “[p]reparing for
hearing” ($5,004.00) on May 15. (Hine Decl. Ex. 1, Dkt. No. 598-1.) Also on May 15, Ms.
Bergman recorded 9 hours for “[t]ravel to and prepare for the hearing,” equivalent to
$4,455.00. (Id.) The day of the hearing, May 16, Mr. Hine recorded 6.5 hours for
“preparing for and participating in case management conference” and 5.6 hours for
“[t]raveling home from Minnesota,” and Ms. Bergman recorded 9.5 hours for
“[p]repar[ing] for the hearings[,] [a]ttend[ing] hearing[,]… and travel home” (Id.)
The Court declines to order Defendants to compensate Plaintiffs for any travel-
related costs or fees incurred in traveling to St. Paul for the Case Management Conference
in May. As HBF Co. notes, Plaintiffs’ counsel would have had to travel to St. Paul for the
Case Management Conference whether or not they brought the Motion to Compel. (HBF
Co.’s Resp. 4, Dkt. No. 615.) The Court will, however award fees and costs directly
associated with the motion, including one third of the time spent preparing for and
participating in the hearing. Reviewing the submitted billing records, the Court concludes
that Plaintiffs’ counsel is entitled to compensation for $5,004.00 for Mr. Hine’s work on
May 15, 2025 and $4,517.50 for his work on May 16, 2025. As for Ms. Bergman’s time,
Plaintiffs’ counsel is entitled to compensation for $1,237.50 for her work on the 15th and
$1,930.50 for her work on the 16th. Plaintiffs’ counsel is also entitled to compensation for
the $22,699.00 for the 44.9 hours spent by Mr. Hine and Mr. Soder in drafting the briefing
for the Motion to Compel. In sum, the amount owed to Plaintiffs’ counsel in connection to
the Motion to Compel is $35,387.50.
III. The July 17, 2025 Deposition of Traci Jensen
Plaintiffs’ counsel requests $34,857.50 in fees and costs incurred in taking the July
17, 2025 Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Traci Jensen, ordered by the Court on June 25, 2025.
That request includes $30,837.50 for 50.50 hours of work, divided between Mr. Hine and
Ms. Bergman, of the Vorys firm, and $4,020.45 for costs related to transcription and
recording services. (Pls’ Second Fee Petition 3, Dkt. No. 623.) Plaintiffs’ counsel is entitled
to compensation for the entirety of the $4,020.45 in transcription and recording costs, as
these costs would not have been incurred if HBF Co. was properly prepared for its first
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
As to attorneys’ fees accrued in preparation for the second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition,
the fee request will be granted in part. HBF Co. argues that much of the work time claimed
by Plaintiffs in their request was unnecessarily duplicative of work that had been done to
prepare for the H.B. Fuller Construction Products deposition and the original HBF Co.
deposition. (HBF Co.’s Resp. 4, Dkt. No. 615.) While the Court recognizes that such work
may have been duplicative, it is not unreasonable to expect that attorneys would need to
spend at least some time refamiliarizing themselves with the issues after a gap of three
months between the first and second 30(b)(6) depositions. However, the billing entries
submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel in this request occasionally commingle work directly
attributable to the deposition with other work on this case that likely would have been
incurred without the Court’s June 25, 2025 Order. (See Hine Decl. Ex. 1, Dkt. No. 624-1.)
For example, one entry includes “[c]ompiling documents for use in 30(b)(6) deposition
addressing particular defenses raised in Defendants’ motion to deny class certification,”
and another includes “review[ing] and analyz[ing] the documents used in support of the
motion to deny class certification to identify additional exhibits for use in the renewed
30(b)(6) deposition.” (Id.) This work, while relevant to the 30(b)(6) deposition ordered by
the Court, will also be relevant to Plaintiffs’ likely motion for class certification later in the
case because Defendant’s motion to deny class certification was denied as premature. (See
Aug. 15, 2025 Order, Dkt. No. 620.) After excising one half of each of the entries where
such commingling occurred, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel incurred $26,351.50 in
attorneys’ fees related to the second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of HBF Co.1 In sum, the
amount owed to Plaintiffs’ counsel in connection to the Second Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
of HBF Co. is $30,371.95.
1 To arrive at this figure, the Court reduced time attributed to commingled entries by one
half and multiplied the sum of remaining time for each attorney by the attorney’s billing
rate, as identified in the Plaintiffs’ papers.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the foregoing and on all of the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ Requests for Attorneys’ Fees
(Dkt. Nos. 597, 623) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
1) Defendants will pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $35,387.50 for attorneys’ fees and costs
associated with Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Adequately Prepared Rule
30(b)(6) Corporate Representative (Dkt. No. 493); and
2) Defendants will pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $30,371.95 for attorneys’ fees and costs
associated with HBF Co.’s Second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
Date: October 10, 2025 s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge Reference
- Full Case Name
- Lisa Rouse, Juston Rouse, Jenna Drouin, and Nicholas Drouin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. H.B. Fuller Company and H.B. Fuller Construction Products Inc.
- Status
- Unknown