United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP TEMPLE, on behalf of himself

individually and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GUARDSMARK, LLC,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-02124 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

DISCOVERY REQUEST

(Docket No. 58)

Plaintiff has filed a request for an order permitting him to take a second Rule 30(b)(6)

deposition. Plaintiff previously conducted a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on several topics related to

Guardsmark’s rest break policy. Plaintiff now seeks leave to conduct a second deposition on the

following additional topics: (1) client billing policies and practices; (2) policies and practices for

recording work time; (3) IT systems in effect during the proposed class period for capturing work time

and client billing data; (4) manager training and duties; and (5) client agreements.

The parties agree that plaintiff’s request is governed by Rule 26, which provides that a court

“must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if it determines that:

(I) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained

from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; 

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by

discovery in the action; or 

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit,

considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the

importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in

resolving the issues. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Even assuming that each of the five new topics plaintiff proposes are

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 62 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

relevant, the Court agrees with Guardsmark that, under the guidelines set forth in Rule 26, plaintiff is

not entitled to notice an additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. In particular, the Court notes that plaintiff

has had ample opportunity to otherwise obtain the information he now seeks through deposition, and

indeed has obtained some of the information he seeks. Plaintiff could have noticed the five topics he

now raises during his original Rule 30(b)(6) deposition request. Even once plaintiff had completed his

original Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, he could have served Guardsmark with interrogatories asking it to

identify employees knowledgeable about particular topics, then noticed the employees for individual

depositions. 

Moreover, in light of the discovery plaintiff has already received and will receive before the

close of discovery, the Court also concludes that the burden and cost of producing additional Rule

30(b)(6) deponent(s) on plaintiff’s additional topics will outweigh the benefit. Plaintiff has already

deposed two of Guardsmark’s senior executives. By the close of discovery, he will also have deposed

two vice presidents and five other employees, and may question these employees as needed. Plaintiff

will also have received discovery of pay records from Guardsmark’s payroll management company, as

well as a number of other documents. This discovery may well duplicate some of what plaintiff seeks

through his proposed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics.

Plaintiff’s request to take an additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 62 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 2