U.S. v. ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, (S.D.Ill. 2003)

CLIFFORD PROUD, Magistrate Judge

Before the Court is plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Protective Order Relating to Defendants' Fourteen Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notices. (Doc. 424). The Court has considered the voluminous pleadings filed in connection with this Motion, including the thirteen exhibits filed in support of the Motion, defendants' Memorandum in Opposition and exhibits (Doc. 422 and 424), and the United States' Reply Memorandum (Doc. 400).

This controversy concerns defendants' attempt to take depositions of the plaintiff pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). Defendants served fourteen notices of deposition in November, 2002, for dates in December, 2002.

Plaintiff objected to the notices because, at the time they were served, the discovery deadline was looming. However, as the Court has now ruled that discovery may continue until the eve of trial, if necessary, that objection is moot.

The Government's second objection is that the deposition notices are overly broad and duplicative of discovery that has already taken place.

The Court is, of course, not privy to the details of what discovery has already taken place. Therefore, it is impossible to say whether these depositions would be duplicative. However, the fact that these deposition notices may concern topics which have already been the subject matter of discovery would not be a reason to quash them. Obviously, a deposition taken under Rule 30(b)(6) is unique in that is the deposition of the party, and not of just an employee or individual.

Of course, the scope of this case has changed somewhat since the notices were served. Judge Reagan granted partial summary judgment, Doc. 406, and plaintiff has filed a Third Amended Complaint, Doc. 427. Also, defendants have withdrawn their fourth affirmative defense, see Doc. 440. In light of these events, if defendants still desire to take Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of plaintiff, they should review their notices to ensure that the topics for examination are relevant under the current pleadings.

Upon consideration and for good cause shown, plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Protective Order Relating to Defendants' Fourteen Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notices (Doc. 424) is DENIED.