Free Supplement/Amendment - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01295-LTB-CBS

Document 72

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-cv-01295-LTB-CBS BETTY GALLEGOS, BERTHA PACHECO, LAURA REYES, MANUELA ARRAS, DAVID ZUBIA, ANTONIO MEZA, JESUS ARENIVAR, ALBA BARRIOS, GLORIA CAMPOS, SAN JUANITA CELEDON, REYNEL CARMONA, SYLVIA CRUZ, JESUS ESTRADA, MARIA ISABEL FLORES, JORGE MARTINEZ, MARIA MCREYNOLDS, IGNACIO RANGEL, JUANA ROSALES, MARIA TOVAR, ANTELMO ZUNUN, MARIA ALVA, PETRONA COREAS, MARIA ESTEVEZ, ALFREDO PINEDA, CARMEN LUNA, PATTY LEHMKUHL & LUIS OCHOA, Plaintiffs, v. SWIFT & COMPANY, Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________________ AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO DENY OR LIMIT THE SCOPE OF PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO RULE 30(b)(6) ______________________________________________________________________________ COMES NOW Defendant Swift & Company, and for its Amendment to Motion for Protective Order to Deny or Limit the Scope of Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), states as follows: 1. Defendant filed its Motion for Protective Order on January 30, 2006. In that

Motion, Defendant inadvertently failed to provide the court with a certificate of compliance

Case 1:04-cv-01295-LTB-CBS

Document 72

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 2 of 4

pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 and Federal Rule 26 stating that it had attempted in good faith to confer with opposing counsel prior to filing its Motion for Protective Order. Defendant now amends its Motion to certify such compliance. 2. 3. On January 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed its Notice of 30(b)(6) deposition. On January 18, 2006, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' notice stating its many

objections to Plaintiffs' overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative and duplicative notice pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). (See attached Exhibit A). 4. On January 22, 2006, Plaintiffs' counsel sent Defense counsel a letter defending

the reasonableness and propriety of his 30(b)(6) Notice and stating that his office was in the process of obtaining a hearing with Magistrate Judge Shaffer regarding the Notice and other discovery disputes. (See attached Exhibit B). 5. On January 23, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an Amended 30(b)(6) Notice. This Notice

remained overly broad, unduly burdensome, cumulative, and duplicative. 6. On January 27, 2006, Plaintiffs' counsel sent Defense counsel an e-mail stating

"consistent with our Notice I intend to appear and take your client's testimony each business day until it is completed." (See attached Exhibit C). Pursuant to Plaintiffs' Notice, the 30(b)(6) depositions were set to begin on January 31, 2006. 7. At this point, Defendant had no alternative but to seek a protective order limiting

the scope of the 30(b)(6), as Plaintiffs' counsel insisted that the depositions take place pursuant to its overly broad, unduly burdensome, cumulative, and duplicative notice. Defendant had no reason to believe that Plaintiffs' counsel would agree to limit its inquiry as stated in Defendant's letter of January 18, 2006.

2

Case 1:04-cv-01295-LTB-CBS

Document 72

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 3 of 4

8.

On January 30, 2006, Defense counsel sent Plaintiffs' counsel an e-mail

responding to his e-mail of January 27, 2006. (See attached Exhibit D). In that e-mail, Defense counsel stated, "with regard to the 30(b)(6) notice, you will receive our motion for protective order this afternoon." 9. An hour later, Plaintiffs' counsel responded via e-mail that he looked "forward to

responding" to our motion for protective order and suggesting we "have Magistrate Shaffer address this issue at the conference." (See attached Exhibit E). 10. Accordingly, Defendant filed its Motion for Protective order on January 30, 2006

seeking to limit the scope of Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) depositions, which were set to being the following day. There was simply no time to confer further and no indication that Plaintiffs' counsel was willing to compromise. 11. Based on the foregoing, Defendant certifies that it attempted to confer in good

faith regarding Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) Notice prior to filing its Motion for Protective Order. Unfortunately, a satisfactory compromise was not reached prior to the date the depositions were set to begin. Defendant then advised Plaintiffs' counsel of its intent to file a motion for protective order, and Plaintiffs' counsel responded that he looked forward to receiving the motion. Accordingly, Defendant had no choice but to file its Motion for Protective Order on January 30, 2006 in order to preserve its objections. WHEREFORE Defendant requests that the Court issue a Protective Order that Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) deposition not be permitted or, in the alternative, that the scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition be limited to certain matters as set forth above or as determined by the Court.

3

Case 1:04-cv-01295-LTB-CBS

Document 72

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 4 of 4

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of February, 2006.

s/ W. V. Bernie Siebert W. V. Bernie Siebert Leslie Abernathy Johnson SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C. 633 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: (303) 297-2900 Fax: (303) 298-0940 [email protected] [email protected]

Stuart B. Johnston, Jr. VINSON & ELKINS, L.L.P. 3700 Trammell Crow Center 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201-2975 Tel: (214) 220-7842 Fax: (214) 999-7842 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Swift & Company

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of February, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO DENY OR LIMIT THE SCOPE OF PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO RULE 30(b)(6) was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail address: Britton Morrell at [email protected]

s/ Clarine R. Kuntz

4