Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Ross Ericksmoen, Inc. v. Continental Resources, Inc.
United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Northwestern Division
June 25, 2015
Ross Ericksmoen, Inc., d/b/a T & R Transport, Plaintiff,
Continental Resources, Inc., Defendant.
ORDER RE PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS
CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
Before the court are two pending discovery-related motions. One is a motion by defendant for a protective order with respect to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. The other is a motion by plaintiff to compel discovery. A telephonic hearing on the motions was held on June 19, 2015.
I. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendant seeks a protective order from a Fourth Amended Notice to Take Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Continental Resources, Inc. ("Fourth Amended Notice"). After careful review, the motion (Doc. No. 75) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The items designated in the Fourth Amended Notice for the production of a witness to testify on behalf of defendant that were in dispute and the court's rulings with respect to the individual items are as follows:
Item 2: Defendant shall produce a witness to provide testimony about the audit that is referenced in exhibits listed in Item 2. Defendant need not, however, produce a witness to testify about Exhibit 3 (Doc. No. 31-9), which is a declaration of Jeff Hurd because the item does not specify with reasonable particularity what information is sought with respect to information provided by Jeff Hurd, who is or was plaintiff's own employee.
Item 4: The exhibit list in the item is from defendant's audit. Hence, the requirement to produce a witness to testify about this item is encompassed within Item 2 above.
Item 5: Plaintiff withdrew this item.
Item 6: This item is moot because it resolved by both parties waiving on the record the right to object to the admissibility of documents CLR0000001-00061956 at trial based on lack of foundation, with the parties reserving the right to object on any other basis.
Item 8: Defendant will not have to provide a witness to testify about the matters referenced in Item 8 because of the failure to meet the "reasonable particularity" requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). Also, the information that reasonably could be sought by plaintiff has already been provided in the response to the referenced requests for admissions, which set forth reasons for the denials.
Item 9: Defendant shall produce someone to testify about the spreadsheet referenced in the item as to what it is, what it purports to show, and how it was prepared. Plaintiff's requests to inquire about why it was sent by defense counsel with no explanation will not be permitted because it is irrelevant.
Item 10: This item is moot because it resolved by both parties waiving on the record the right to object to the admissibility of documents CLR00019159-00019164 at trial based on lack of foundation, with the parties reserving the right to object on any other basis.
Item 13: Defendant shall produce a witness to testify about what was stated in the e-mail string referenced in the item.
Item 15: Defendant shall produce a witness to testify generally about the procedures it uses to report the disposal of salt water to the North Dakota Industrial Commission.
Item 16: Defendant shall not have to produce a witness to testify about this item because any information that may be solicited is equally available to ...
Buy This Entire Record For