Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06909/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06909-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GINA ARMAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-06909-EJD (VKD)

ORDER RE MARCH 28, 2019 FOURTH 

DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 42

Plaintiffs Gina and David Armas seek the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant USAA 

Casualty Insurance Company’s (“USAA”) corporate representative on noticed deposition topics 5 

and 7 as they relate to the July 2014 collision at issue in this matter. USAA proposes to produce 

its witness in San Antonio, Texas, where USAA has its principal place of business. The Armases 

ask that USAA be ordered to produce the witness in the San Francisco Bay Area, or that USAA be 

ordered to pay their counsel’s expenses to travel to San Antonio. 

The Armases say that USAA failed to prepare its corporate representative to address the 

full scope of topics 5 and 7 (i.e., including matters concerning the July 2014 collision) during a 

prior Rule 30(b)(6) deposition conducted in San Antonio. For this reason, the Armases say that 

USAA should be required to produce a corporate representative in the San Francisco Bay Area 

(where plaintiffs’ counsel is located) or pay for their counsel’s travel to San Antonio.

USAA is correct that generally a party’s corporate representative will be deposed in the 

location where the party maintains its place of business, unless the parties agree otherwise. 

Aerocrine AB v. Apieron, Inc., 267 F.R.D. 105, 108 (D. Del. 2010) (citing 8A C. Wright, A. Miller 

& R. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2112 (2d ed. 1994)). The parties seem to have had 

Case 5:17-cv-06909-EJD Document 45 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

several communications about the location of the original deposition, but none of them is in a form 

that the Court can enforce. However, it appears that USAA did not provide a corporate 

representative who was fully prepared at the time of the original deposition on topics 5 and 7, 

necessitating a further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to complete testimony on these topics. In these 

circumstances, it is appropriate for USAA to bear the costs of the Armases’ travel again to San 

Antonio for this purpose.

Accordingly, if USAA produces its corporate representative for further testimony 

regarding topics 5 and 7 in San Antonio, USAA must reimburse the Armases’ counsel’s 

reasonable travel expenses (hotel and transportation, not attorneys’ fees), but only to the extent 

that the purpose of the travel is for a further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on these topics. If the travel 

has other purposes, USAA must reimburse the appropriate portion of the travel expenses 

attributable to the further deposition. The Court expects the parties to work this out, but if they 

cannot, they shall submit their dispute about USAA’s reimbursement of travel expenses to the 

Court using the discovery dispute resolution procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-06909-EJD Document 45 Filed 03/29/19 Page 2 of 2