Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01477/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01477-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 WESTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. FAMILY

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LLLP, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS

vs. CASE NO. 4:04CV1477GH

SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC., ET Al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are plaintiffs’ motion for leave to take more than ten

depositions and defendants’ motion for a protective order barring the deposition of

Richard Sokolov. Defendants object to plaintiffs’ motion and plaintiffs’ object to

defendants’ motion.

The Court will first address the motion for a protective order barring the

deposition of Richard Sokolov. Sokolov is the President and Chief Operating Officer

of Simon Property Group. Simon Property Group owns or has an interest in 297

properties in 40 states and Puerto Rico. It also holds interests in shopping centers in

France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Japan, Mexico and Canada. It is the largest publicly

traded retail real estate company in North America and has approximately 5,000

employees. Defendants state that Sokolov has no unique or special knowledge of the

issues in this case superior to the knowledge of mid-level managers who handle daily

business activities and operations. Defendants state that the information plaintiffs

seek can be gathered through less intrusive methods and that Sokolov is unavailable

for the deposition for the date noticed by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs respond that Sokolov does have personal knowledge, and that he

attended a meeting with plaintiffs’ representatives in the fall of 2004, to discuss the

Case 4:04-cv-01477-BRW Document 39 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 3
1

If defendants decide to call additional witnesses, plaintiffs will be granted leave to take

the depositions of those witnesses before they are allowed to testify. 

-2-

issues in the case. Defendants counter that evidence of the discussions would be

inadmissible as the meeting was held as a settlement conference. 

Depositions of high level corporate executives have been barred when there is

evidence that the executive has no personal knowledge of the events in dispute. See

Harris v. Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 204 F. R. D. 44, 46 (E. D. N.Y. 2001). Here,

however, Sokolov had enough knowledge of the facts of the case to travel to Little Rock

to meet with plaintiffs’ representatives. The Court cannot say, at this time, whether

ultimately the testimony would be admissible; it is clear that the information sought

is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(1). 

The motion for protective order is therefore denied. Plaintiffs have indicated

that they are willing to take the deposition after Sokolov’s vacation and before the

discovery cut-off. Defendants should arrange to make Sokolov available for deposition

during that period of time.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to take more than 10 depositions. They

state that they need to take the depositions of the 14 individuals defendants have

identified as witnesses, as well as a limited number of non-parties who have relevant

information. Plaintiffs anticipate that they will need to take 20 depositions. 

Defendants object. They note that the discovery sought is cumulative and

duplicative and obtainable from other sources. Plaintiffs’ discovery requests will have

yielded production of almost 100,000 documents in the case. Defendants have agreed

to allow plaintiffs to depose 10 witnesses; it has narrowed its list of likely witnesses

to only 7, rather than 14. It appears that plaintiffs will not need to take depositions

of all 14 individuals.1

Case 4:04-cv-01477-BRW Document 39 Filed 07/18/05 Page 2 of 3
-3-

The Court recognizes that this is a substantial case, involving massive amounts

of documents. The parties are working under a short time-frame with a September

6th trial date. Defendants have had to respond to large discovery requests and the

parties are trying to comply with the July 31st discovery deadline. 

The Court, however, is of the opinion that plaintiffs should be allowed to take

the depositions of those individuals who will be defendants’ witnesses and those who

have relevant information, particularly if they are outside the subpoena power of the

Court. The depositions of the non-party witnesses should not be particularly lengthy.

After considering the arguments, the Court finds that plaintiffs should be

granted leave to take more than 10 depositions. The Court, however, will limit the

number of depositions to 15. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to take more than 10 depositions is granted

in part and denied in part; the motion for protective order is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of July, 2005.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-01477-BRW Document 39 Filed 07/18/05 Page 3 of 3