Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00306/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00306-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

17-cv-0306-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENO CONTRACTING, INC., et 

al.,

Plaintiffs (Counter-Claimants), 

v.

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Counter-Defendant. 

Case No.: 17-cv-0306-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REGARDING LOCATION OF 

DEPOSITION OF JOHN KIRBY

[ECF NO. 21]

Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties to determine a 

discovery dispute filed on December 4, 2017. (ECF No. 19). The parties 

cannot agree on a location for the deposition of Counter-Defendant 

Philadelphia’s Vice-President - Claims, John Kirby. Reno has noticed and 

subpoenaed Mr. Kirby for deposition in San Diego and seeks to compel 

compliance. Philadelphia has moved for a protective order insisting that the 

deposition take place at or near his place of business, the corporate 

headquarters of Philadelphia in, yes, Philadelphia. It is a bit mind-boggling 

that counsel cannot agree on such a simple thing. But, there it is and the 

Court will resolve the dispute. 

Case 3:17-cv-00306-MDD Document 26 Filed 12/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-cv-0306-MDD

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

DISCUSSION

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company is a party and a 

corporation. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide two methods by 

which a corporate party to a proceeding may be deposed: (1) Rule 30(b)(1)

provides for the deposition by notice of a corporation through a particular 

officer, director or managing agent of the corporation; and (2) Rule 30(b)(6)

provides for the deposition of the corporation by notice providing the matters 

on which the examination of the corporation will take place. The corporation 

then must designate one or more persons to testify on behalf of the 

corporation. 

Regardless of whether the notice is provided under Rule 30(b)(1) or Rule 

30(b)(6), the testimony of the deponent will be binding on the party. See Rule 

32(a)(3). A deposition notice is sufficient to require the appearance of the 

named corporate officer or the corporation’s designee; a subpoena under Rule 

45 is not required. See Cadent Ltd v. 3M Unitek Corp., 232 F.R.D. 625, 628 

n.1 (C.D. Cal. 2005). 

Ordinarily, the deposing party may choose the location of the deposition 

of another party. That choice may be challenged by the other party in a 

motion for protective order under Rule 26(c)(2) and the Court may then 

designate a different place. Cadent, 232 F.R.D. at 628. The general rule, 

however, is that the deposition of a corporation through its agents and 

officers should be taken at the corporation’s principal place of business. Id.

This presumption can be overcome upon consideration of the following 

factors: (1) the location of counsel for the parties in the forum district; (2) the 

number of corporate representatives a party is seeking to depose; (3) the 

likelihood of significant discovery disputes arising which would necessitate 

resolution by the forum court; (4) whether the persons sought to be deposed 

Case 3:17-cv-00306-MDD Document 26 Filed 12/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-cv-0306-MDD

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

often engage in travel for business purposes; and (5) the equities with regard 

to the nature of the claim and the parties’ relationship. Id. at 628-29. 

“[C]orporate defendants are frequently deposed in places other than the 

location of the principal place of business, especially in the forum where the 

action is pending, for the convenience of all parties and in the general 

interests of judicial economy.” Id. at 629.

There appears no dispute that Mr. Kirby is an officer of Philadelphia

and noticed for deposition in that capacity under Rule 30(b)(1). The subpoena 

for his appearance under Rule 45 was not necessary. His testimony will bind 

the company. The location of his deposition will be determined by the Court 

applying the Cadent factors, as follows:

1. Location of Counsel

All counsel are located in southern California (San Diego for CounterClaimant (Plaintiff) Reno and Los Angeles and Newport Beach for 

Philadelphia)). This factor weighs in favor of San Diego. 

2. Number of Corporate Representatives to be Deposed

Reno separately noticed the deposition of Philadelphia under Rule 

30(b)(6). Philadelphia designated another employee, from Colorado, as its 

designee. That deposition will occur in San Diego. With only one deponent 

from its headquarters being noticed, this factor favors deposition in San 

Diego (it is less expensive to fly one person here from Philadelphia than at 

least 2 lawyers from southern California there). 

3. Likelihood of Discovery Dispute

Despite the current dispute, the Court does not believe it likely that a 

dispute will arise during this deposition. This factor favors Philadelphia.

4. Whether the Deponent Travels Often for Business

No information was provided to the Court regarding this factor. 

Case 3:17-cv-00306-MDD Document 26 Filed 12/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-cv-0306-MDD

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

Considering the general rule, it favors Philadelphia. 

5. The Equities

This case initially was filed by Philadelphia against Reno in the 

Superior Court for San Diego County regarding a subrogated claim for fire 

damage. Reno cross-complained for payment on a water damage claim 

having nothing to do with the fire but at the same property. Philadelphia 

then dismissed its claim and removed the case to this Court. Reno asserts 

that its cross-claim was mandatory, that Philadelphia chose this forum and 

that Philadelphia has to live with that choice. Philadelphia asserts that 

Reno’s cross-complaint was not mandatory and that Philadelphia should be 

accorded the presumption ordinarily afforded to an out-of-state defendant. 

Without deciding whether the cross-claim was mandatory or 

permissive, the Court finds the equities in favor of the deposition of Mr. Kirby 

occurring here in San Diego. The matter in this Court is derived from the 

lawsuit initiated by Philadelphia here. Moreover, despite the fact that the 

city of Philadelphia is older than San Diego and holds a significant place in 

U.S. history, it is winter there and perpetual summer here. Weather equity 

trumps historical equity at this time. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Reno’s motion to compel as presented in this joint motion is 

GRANTED. Defendant Philadelphia’s motion for a protective order as 

presented in this joint motion is DENIED. Absent a different agreement by 

the parties, the deposition of Mr. Kirby must be held in San Diego. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Date: December 14, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00306-MDD Document 26 Filed 12/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4