United States District Court, D. Kansas
P. O'HARA, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Wichita Art Museum, Inc. and Patricia McDonnell have filed a
motion to quash or for protective order regarding the Rule
30(b)(6) deposition notice filed by plaintiff (ECF No. 64).
For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is
March 10, 2017, plaintiff served Wichita Art Museum, Inc.
with a deposition notice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6),
listing 20 topics for examination. Both before and after this
notice was served, plaintiff's counsel communicated
plaintiff's intent to seek a second Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition to inquire about “the factual and legal
basis of [Wichita Art Museum, Inc.'s] defenses”
once such defenses are asserted-i.e., after the pending
partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37) is ruled and Wichita
Art Museum, Inc. files its answer to the amended
seek to stay the deposition until such time as plaintiff
reasonably anticipates being able to complete all necessary
areas of inquiry in a single deposition, arguing that a
second deposition of the same corporate representative will
cause defendants undue burden and expense. Alternatively,
defendants seek an order precluding plaintiff from deposing
Wichita Art Museum, Inc.'s corporate representative a
second time. Plaintiff counters that defendants' motion
is procedurally invalid insofar as it seeks an advisory
opinion with respect to a second deposition of Wichita Art
Museum, Inc. Additionally, plaintiff claims defendants have
not met their burden of demonstrating undue burden or
Civ. P. 26(c)(1) provides that “[t]he court may, for
good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.” Defendants, as the parties seeking the
protective order, must show that good cause exists to warrant
such an order. This requires “a particular and
specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from
stereotyped and conclusory statements.”
a close call, the court finds good cause to avoid proceeding
in a manner that virtually guarantees two separate Rule
30(b)(6) depositions in this case when one should suffice.
Indeed, as a practical matter, the court sees no reason for
the deposition to be taken immediately. The expert deadlines
in this case have passed and no party has filed a certificate
of service with regard to such a disclosure. Thus, presumably
the deposition isn't needed to provide information for an
expert witness. More importantly, there is no trial setting
in this case, and a trial date will not be set until it is
determined at the pretrial conference whether it's
necessary to extend the dispositive motion deadline. Thus,
even if an answer is not filed prior to the June 9, 2017
discovery cutoff and the June 22, 2017 pretrial conference,
the court can extend the discovery deadline for this limited
purpose, and correspondingly extend the August 1, 2017
dispositive motion deadline.
before April 3, 2017, plaintiff shall elect to either: (1)
proceed with the deposition confined to the topics that were
served previously,  with the understanding there'd be no
questioning permitted on possible defenses (and with the
further understanding that, at least as the record currently
stands, the court would be disinclined to allow a second Rule
30(b)(6) deposition); or (2) defer the deposition, as
defendants have suggested, until after the presiding U.S.
District Judge, Eric F. Melgren, rules the pending partial
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37) and Wichita Art Museum, Inc.
files its answer.
 ECF No. 63. Wichita Art Museum, Inc.
has identified Patricia McDonnell as its corporate
 ECF No. 64 at 14. Since the instant
motion to quash or for protective order has been fully
briefed, plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint (ECF No. 75); defendants have
notified the court that the motion is opposed.
 As stated in the court's March 13,
2017 order (ECF No. 65), the filing of defendants' motion
automatically stays the deposition (noticed for March 14,
2017) pending the court's ruling on the motion.
Suture Express., Inc. v. Cardinal
Health, 200, LLC, No. 12-2760, 2013 WL 6909158, at *2
(D. Kan. Dec. 31, 2013) (citing Layne Christensen Co. v.
Purolite Co., 271 F.R.D. 240, 244 (D. Kan. 2010));
Bryan v. Eichenwald, 191 F.R.D. 650, 651-52 (D. Kan.
2000) (citing Sentr ...