Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona resolves three discovery disputes in Michael Zaccardo’s employment-related action against Horne Motors of Gilbert LLC and others. The Court quashes the deposition of Robert C. Horne, denies an associated document request as untimely, limits certain Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics, and orders supplemental discovery responses and meet-and-confer efforts concerning document production and confidentiality designations. The Court also extends specified case-management deadlines for resolving outstanding discovery disputes.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the deposition of Horne Motors' high-level owner should be permitted under the apex-deposition framework.
- Whether Plaintiff's document request served with the deposition notice was an untimely Rule 34 request that could not be used to circumvent the written-discovery deadline.
- What limits should apply to the disputed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics.
- Whether alleged deficiencies in Defendants' Rule 26(g) certification and document production warranted further briefing and supplemental disclosures.
- What relief was appropriate concerning AEO designations, redactions, Plaintiff's RFP No. 9 response, Plaintiff's possession of AEO documents, and Plaintiff's supplemental interrogatory responses.
Holdings
- The proposed deposition of Horne was quashed because he lacked unique, first-hand, nonrepetitive knowledge of the facts at issue and Plaintiff had not exhausted less intrusive discovery methods.
- Defendants were not required to respond to Plaintiff's March 4, 2026 document request because it was substantively a Rule 34 request served after the February 27, 2026 written-discovery deadline.
- The court overruled objections to Topics 1, 2, and 8; narrowed Topics 6 and 11 to procedures and efforts undertaken to search for and produce documents in the litigation; and limited Topic 7 to previously produced documents and materials concerning comparator service advisors' disciplinary records.
- The court made no finding of improper conduct but ordered Plaintiff to identify documents allegedly produced after the February 18 certification and documents allegedly still outstanding, and ordered Defendants to respond specifically to each item.
- The court declined to resolve the AEO and redaction dispute without an adequate meet and confer, required the parties to identify and discuss each disputed document, and required Plaintiff to comply with the Protective Order before using AEO-designated documents in depositions or filings.
- Plaintiff was ordered to supplement his response to RFP No. 9 by stating that he had no responsive documents and explaining his search, or by producing withheld responsive documents, and to transmit a verified redline comparison of his Fourth Supplemental NUI responses.
Key quotations
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” (at 1)
“Accordingly, the deposition of Mr. Horne will be quashed.” (at 2)
“If Zaccardo intends to use any such documents in depositions or filings, he must first meet and confer with defense counsel to reach agreement on how those documents will be handled.” (at 10)
Factual background
Plaintiff sought to depose Robert C. Horne, Horne Motors' majority owner, and served a document request in connection with that deposition. Horne submitted a declaration stating that he was not involved in day-to-day operations or routine personnel matters and lacked personal knowledge of Plaintiff's hiring or termination; other managers with direct knowledge were already scheduled for deposition. The parties also disputed the scope of Rule 30(b)(6) topics, the timeliness and completeness of document production, AEO designations and redactions, and Plaintiff's responses to requests for production and interrogatories.
Procedural history
The parties submitted three joint discovery disputes concerning a proposed deposition of Robert C. Horne, alleged deficiencies in Defendants' discovery production, and alleged deficiencies in Plaintiff's discovery responses. The court held a discovery dispute hearing on March 17, 2026, considered the parties' written position statements and arguments, quashed Horne's deposition, denied an untimely document request, narrowed or resolved deposition-topic objections, ordered supplemental discovery responses and briefing, and extended certain case-management deadlines.