Benjamin Young v. Miles Greene, individually, and United Parcel Service

Summary

The court addresses UPS’s motion for a protective order and Benjamin Young’s motion to compel concerning an amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. The court permits a further deposition but narrows or strikes several requested topics based on relevance, proportionality, geographic scope, and temporal limitations, in the context of Young’s Tennessee Disability Act and FMLA retaliation claims.

Holdings

1. Although Young served the amended notice too late and should have provided UPS more time to prepare its witness, good cause supported allowing another Rule 30(b)(6) deposition subject to the court's modifications.
2. Discovery must concern nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; the requesting party bears the initial burden of showing relevance, and the opposing party then bears the burden of specifically showing disproportionality.
3. Discovery concerning Young's termination, the racial-slur investigation, and potentially comparable discipline was relevant and proportional when limited to racial-slur allegations, specified Memphis-area UPS distribution centers, and specified time periods.
4. UPS's motion for a protective order and Young's motion to compel were each granted in part and denied in part; Young was permitted 20 days to conduct the modified Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and then 45 days to respond to UPS's summary-judgment motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Young's amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, served five business days before the close of discovery, should be permitted.
2. Which deposition topics sought relevant and proportional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
3. Whether the proposed geographic, temporal, subject-matter, and comparator limitations were appropriate.
4. What additional discovery and briefing schedule should apply before resolution of UPS's motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

other