1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

SHELLEY GIPSON, §

§

PLAINTIFF, §

§

VS. § CA NO. 4:22-CV-00730-P

§

WEATHERFORD COLLEGE OF THE PARKER §

COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT, §

§

DEFENDANT. §

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR A PROTECTIVE 

ORDER, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), Defendant respectfully moves the Court 

for a protective order quashing Plaintiff’s notices of deposition for the 

deposition of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative(s) and for the deposition 

of an Executive Dean of the college at a location other than at Defendant’s 

principal place of business—the campus of Weatherford College.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION

THE LOCATION OF A RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF AN ENTITY, 

ITS AGENTS AND OFFICERS—PARTICULARLY OF A DEFENDANT

ENTITY—IS, PRESUMPTIVELY, THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF 

BUSINESS OF THE ENTITY, AND THAT PRESUMPTION 

ESTABLISHES GOOD CAUSE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER. SEE, 

E.G., SALTER V. UPJOHN CO., 593 F.2D 649, 651 (5TH CIR. 1979).

A. RELEVANT FACTS:

This is an employment discrimination lawsuit. In her Amended Complaint

(ECF 22), Plaintiff, a former employee of Weatherford College from 

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 47 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID 657
2

September 14, 2020, until her resignation, July 20, 2021, claims she was 

subjected to unlawful sexual harassment by the college President and to 

retaliation, resulting in a “constructive discharge,” in violation of TITLE VII OF 

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (“TITLE VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000-e, et seq.1

Weatherford College is located in Parker County.

It’s principal place of business is the college campus in Weatherford.

Plaintiff seeks the deposition of one or more representatives of the college

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) regarding the following topics:

1. A description of the procedures and practices in effect at Weatherford 

College (from January 2020 through the present) for conducting 

investigations into complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation made 

against senior College administrators.

2. All steps taken by Weatherford College in its investigation of the 

complaint made by Shelley Gipson to the Title IX compliance officer and 

Human Resources.

3. All remedial action (if any) taken by Weatherford College because of 

the complaint made by Shelley Gipson to the Title IX compliance officer 

and Human Resources.

4. Weatherford College’s implementation and enforcement of its antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies from January 2020 through 

the present.

5. The deliberations, considerations, and discussions by the Weatherford 

College Board of Trustees regarding Dr. Farmer’s candidacy for the 

President position.

6. All steps taken by Weatherford College in its investigation of any 

complaints of harassment and/or retaliation made against Dr. Farmer 

throughout the duration of his employment at Weatherford College.

1 Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegations.

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 47 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID 658
3

7. All steps taken by Weatherford College to prevent retaliation by Dr. 

Farmer against Plaintiff following Plaintiff’s complaint of harassment to 

the College’s Title IX compliance officer and human resources 

department.

8. All steps taken by Weatherford College to prevent retaliation by Dr. 

Farmer against any employee for being a witness in this matter.

Responsibly responding to the foregoing topics will require the college to 

produce at least two representatives to testify—Paul Williams, Executive 

Director of Human Resources for the College, and Mac Smith, President of the 

college Board of Trustees 2

Mr. Williams’ office and principal place of business is on the college campus 

in Weatherford.

Mr. Smith lives and practices law in Weatherford.

Plaintiff also seeks the deposition of Adam Finley, an Executive Dean and 

Registrar of the college. Mr. Finley’s office and principle place of business is on 

the college campus in Weatherford.

Records of the college potentially relevant to the deposition(s) and 

designated deposition topics are located on the college campus.

2 Depending on the questions asked during the deposition regarding the 

designated topics, it may become necessary for the college to produce 

additional college officials at the deposition. See, e.g., QBE Ins. Corp. v. Jorda 

Enterprises, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676, 690 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (“If it becomes apparent 

during the deposition that the designee is unable to adequately respond to 

relevant questions on listed subjects, then the responding corporation has a 

duty to timely designate additional, supplemental witnesses as substitute 

deponents.”).

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 47 Filed 12/14/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID 659
4

In response to Plaintiff’s deposition request, Defendant has offered to 

produce its representative(s) and Dean Finley and provide a suitable 

specifically designated conference room (free of charge) on the campus of the 

college, its principal place of business.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff has unilaterally noticed the depositions to take place 

at 300 Throckmorton Street, Suite 1600, Fort Worth, Texas. See attached 

Exhibit 1. The location is the business office of a court reporting firm. See

Court Reporter Fort Worth | Veritext Legal Solutions3

The putative location unilaterally chosen by Plaintiff is in Tarrant County.

B. APPLICABLE LAW—THE PROPER LOCATION FOR A RULE 30(6)(6) DEPOSITION AND 

AN ENTITY’S OFFICERS, PARTICULARLY OF A DEFENDANT, IS THE PRINCIPAL 

PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE DEFENDANT ENTITY:

“It is well settled that the deposition of a corporation by its agents and 

officers should ordinarily be taken at its principal place of business, especially 

when, as in this case, the corporation is the defendant.” Noble Capital Fund 

Mgmt., LLC v. US Capital Glob. Inv. Mgmt., LLC, 2022 WL 17347152, at 3 (W.D. 

Tex. Nov. 30, 2022) (quoting Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 

1979)). See also, e.g., Gearbox Software, LLC v. Apogee Software, Ltd., 2014 WL 

3109868, at 1 (N.D. Tex. July 8, 2014) (“The deposition of a corporation by its 

agents and officers should ordinarily be taken at its principal place of business, 

especially when . . . the corporation is the defendant.” quoting Salter));

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Worldwide Ins. Mgmt. Corp., 147 F.R.D. 125, 127 (N.D. 

Tex. 1992) (“Deposition of a corporation through its agents or officers should 

normally be taken at the principal place of business of the corporation.”). “This 

3 In addition to the normal court reporting fees for the deposition, the 

reporting firm is, presumably, charging a fee for use of its facilities.

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 47 Filed 12/14/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID 660
5

presumption is based on the concept that it is the plaintiff who brings the 

lawsuit and who exercises the first choice as to the forum.” Tailift USA, Inc. v. 

Tailift Co., Ltd., 2004 WL 722244 (N.D. Tex. March 26, 2004). See also, e.g.,

Pruco Life Ins. Co. v. Ca. Energy Dev. Inc., 2021 WL 5043289, at 6 (S.D. Cal. 

Oct. 29, 2021) (“The usual rule is that the lack of choice of forum is reason 

enough to require the deposition to be taken where the deponent resides.”).

Another reason for the rule is “to avoid mandating the transportation of 

business records.” E.g., Lovato v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2017 WL 2274684, at 2 

(N.D. Ind. May 25, 2017).

This presumption satisfies the Rule 26(c) requirement of “good cause” for a 

protective order. E.g., Pogue v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2016 WL 2343898, at 3 

(W.D. Ky. May 3, 2016); Chris-Craft Indust. Prod., Inc. v. Kuraray Co., Ltd., 184 

F.R.D. 605, 607 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (“[t]he purposes underlying the general rule 

that the depositions should proceed at the corporation’s principal place of 

business create a presumption that the corporation has good cause for a 

protective order.” quoting Sears v. Am. Entm’t Group, Inc., 1995 WL 66411, at 1 

(N.D. Ill. Feb.13, 1995)). “When a corporation objects to a deposition being 

taken at a place other than its principal place of business, ‘the objection should 

be sustained unless there are unusual circumstances which justify such an 

inconvenience to the corporation.’” Lovato v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2017 WL 

2274684, at 2 (quoting Chris-Craft, supra).

Rather, “[a] plaintiff seeking to depose the corporate representative at a 

location other than the corporation’s principal place of business must show 

‘good cause’ or ‘peculiar circumstances’ that would justify the request.” Noble 

Capital Fund Mgmt., 2022 WL 17347152, at 3; Plastronics Socket Partners, Ltd. 

v. Dong Weon Hwang, 2019 WL 350405, at 1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2019) (“A court 

may only deviate from this well settled rule if ‘peculiar’ or ‘extraordinary’

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 47 Filed 12/14/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID 661
6

circumstances exist in the case. [Salter, 593 F.2d 649] at 652.”); Espinosa v. 

Stevens Tanker Div., LLC, 2017 WL 1417407, at 2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017); 

Tailift USA, Inc. v. Tailift Co., Ltd., 2004 WL 722244 at 2 (“[T]he burden to show 

sufficient circumstances to overcome the presumption that Defendant’s 

corporate representative should be deposed at its principal place of business is 

on Plaintiff.”).

C. PLAINTIFF CANNOT DEMONSTRATE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR 

OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTIVE LOCATION OF THE DEPOSITIONS:

In evaluating whether Plaintiff has met her burden to overcome the 

presumptive location of the depositions, see, e.g., Noble Capital Fund Mgmt., 

2022 WL 17347152, at 3:

District courts have looked to the following factors to determine whether 

the plaintiff has shown good cause: (1) whether counsel for the parties 

are located in the forum district; (2) whether the deposing party is 

seeking to depose only one corporate representative; (3) whether the 

corporation chose a corporate representative who resides outside the 

location of the principal place of business and the forum district; 

(4) whether significant discovery disputes may arise and there is an 

anticipated necessity of resolution by the forum court; and (5) whether 

the claim’s nature and the parties’ relationship is such that an 

appropriate adjustment of the equities favors a deposition site in the 

forum district.

Plaintiff cannot establish peculiar or extraordinary circumstances for 

overcoming the presumptive location of the deposition(s) on the college’s 

campus.

First, neither counsel are located in Fort Worth.

Second, in addition to a deposition of an Executive Dean of the college, the 

matters concerning which examination is requested for the Rule 30(b)(6) 

deposition will necessitate production of at least two additional witnesses. Any 

records relevant to the deposition(s) are located on campus.

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 47 Filed 12/14/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID 662
7

Third, the college has not chosen deponents who work or reside outside of 

Weatherford.

Fourth, the college’s principal place of business is within this district and 

division. Accordingly, the fourth factor is irrelevant.

Fifth, Plaintiff has not established any equitable reasons sufficient to 

overcome the presumptive location of the deposition(s). See Noble Capital Fund 

Mgmt., 2022 WL 17347152, at 3 (plaintiff failed to establish extraordinary 

circumstances for moving the presumptive location of the depositions):

Four of the five factors weigh against Plaintiffs’ request to depose 

Sweeney in Austin: Counsel of record are not located in Austin; 

Plaintiffs are seeking to depose two corporate representatives; Sweeney 

and Towle both live in California; and there are no equites in this case 

that justify their request. As to the fourth factor, while discovery 

disputes have arisen in this case, that does not outweigh the other 

factors. Accordingly, Sweeney’s deposition should be taken in San 

Francisco, California, at US Capital’s principal place of business.

See also Motion Games, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 2014 WL 5306961, at 3 

(E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2014) (plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s deposition in 

the United States, rather than Japan, denied; plaintiff failed to establish good 

cause for overcoming the presumption).

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 47 Filed 12/14/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID 663
8

CONCLUSIONS AND REQUESTED RELIEF

For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for a protective order 

should be, in all things, GRANTED. The deposition(s) of the Executive Dean of 

the college and of Defendant’s representatives concerning the foregoing eight 

designated topics should take place, if at all, on the campus of Weatherford 

College.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ John L. Ross

JOHN L. ROSS

Texas State Bar No. 17303020

THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P.

700 North Pearl Street

Suite 2500

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 871-8206

Fax: (214) 871-8209

Email: jross@thompsoncoe.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that on Friday, December 9, 2022, I conferenced the foregoing 

motion with Plaintiff’s counsel, Kevin Duddlesten, who opposes the motion.

/s/ John L. Ross

JOHN L. ROSS

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 47 Filed 12/14/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID 664
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E) and 5(b)(3), I hereby certify a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically and notice of the 

filing was thereby given to Plaintiff’s counsel on the date file-stamped by the 

Clerk. Parties may access this filing through the court’s electronic filing

system.

/s/ John L. Ross

JOHN L. ROSS

Case 4:22-cv-00730-P Document 47 Filed 12/14/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID 665