United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for
Sanctions and Reconsideration (ECF No. 135). This matter is
fully briefed and ready for disposition.
of Mr. Glynias
raise several issues with respect to the 30(b)(6) deposition
of Plaintiffs corporate designee, Stefan Glynias. On
September 2, 2016, this Court entered an Order holding
"that Defendants have a right to conduct a 30(b)(6)
deposition in this case because it does not appear that all
of the same topics were addressed in the prior corporate
depositions in the underlying case." (ECF No. 115). The
Court also ordered that certain areas of inquiry were not
proper topics for the 30(b)(6). In their current motion
before the Court, Defendants complain that Plaintiff never
conferred with Defendants prior to the 30(b)(6) deposition
and that Mr. Glynias testified that he had never spoken with
anyone at Wal-Mart about his designation as a corporate
have not shown how the designation of Mr. Glynias or his
failure to confer with his client impeded the progress of the
30(b)(6) deposition. Plaintiff remains bound by the answers
given by Mr. Glynias as its 30(b)(6) corporate
representative. The Court, however, finds no basis to
sanction Plaintiff based upon Mr. Glynias' answers.
Production of Documents
also contend that Plaintiff failed to produce any documents
or specifically designate by bates numbers any documents in
response to the document requests as part of the Rule
30(b)(6) deposition. (ECF No. 136 at 7). Plaintiffs argue
that they produced all of the documents previously.
have not shown that they were missing any necessary documents
or that the absence of such documents impeded the deposition.
As a result, the Court will not sanction Plaintiff.
assert that, contrary to this Court's Order, the parties
failed to discuss the topics to be discussed prior to the
actual deposition. (ECF No. 136 at 7-9). Defendants complain
that Mr. Glynias was not permitted to discuss Topics 8 and/or
9 of the topics identified in the 30(b)(6) Notice of
Deposition. Defendants claim that if Plaintiff had discussed
its position as to the deposition topics prior to the
deposition, as required by the Court's September 19, 2016
Order, then these matters could have been addressed prior to
the October 10, 2016 deposition. As a result, Defendants
request that this Court impose sanctions.
appears to the Court that neither side attempted to discuss
the deposition topics prior to the deposition. Communication
between the parties seems to have been a problem throughout
this litigation. The Court will not issue sanctions, but
again implores the parties to discuss and communicate to
avoid these misunderstandings and confusions.
of Insurance Issue
also ask this Court to reconsider its prior insurance ruling
that affects deposition Topics 33 and 34, which related to
insurance coverage for the settlement. (ECF No. 136 at
12-13). Defendants assert that Mr. Glynias testified "as
to a transfer or 'buyout' by AIG and as a result of
AIG's involvement, and preference not to risk an adverse
judgment at trial, the settlement value of the case
significantly rose." (ECF No. 136 at 10). Defendants
assert that "[i]f the amount paid by AIG, after a
transfer or buyout of the claims was inflated due to
AIG's actions or fear of an adverse judgment, these
Defendants should not be required to pay anymore [sic] than
the claim was worth when Wal-Mart, current Plaintiff was
handling the matter." (Id.).
reconsideration, the Court still does not believe that
discovery of insurance information as it applies to AIG's
buyout or transfer of claims is relevant to this case.
Parties settle for a variety of different issues in every
case. Discovery regarding the insurance information would
lead to a mini trial on the buyout and similar issues and is