Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Faurecia Automotive Seating, LLCResponse in Opposition re NOTICE to Take Deposition of Rule 30S.D. Miss.March 13, 2019 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-cv-757-DPJ-FKB FAURECIA AUTOMOTIVE SEATING, LLC AND FAURECIA MADISON AUTOMOTIVE SEATING, LLC DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION Defendants, Faurecia Automotive Seating, LLC and Faurecia Madison Automotive Seating, LLC,1 (“Faurecia”) respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition (the “Notice”) as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Counsel for all parties have agreed that the deposition will take place on a mutually agreed date and at a mutually agreed location. Nevertheless, Faurecia objects to the scope of the Notice and its forty-two (42) designated topics. The Notice is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Moreover, it is not proportional to the needs of this case. Faurecia further objects to the Notice as follows: 1. Faurecia objects to each examination subject matter that does not describe the subject matter with reasonable particularity. Faurecia also objects to each examination subject 1 The EEOC has sued the wrong Faurecia entity. The allegations made in the Amended Complaint are directed to Faurecia Madison Automotive Seating, Inc., a wholly separate entity from Faurecia Automotive Seating, LLC. As such, any reference to “Faurecia” means Faurecia Madison Automotive Seating, Inc. Faurecia Automotive Seating, LLC fully reserves all of its rights and defenses due to the EEOC's error, and this submission should not operate as a waiver of any rights or defenses. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 1 of 28 -2- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 matter to the extent that it seeks testimony on matters either not known or not reasonably available to Faurecia. 2. Faurecia objects to each examination subject matter that requests and/or requires testimony in the form of a legal interpretation, conclusion, and/or opinion by a corporate representative. 3. Faurecia objects to each examination subject matter that requests and/or requires testimony requiring scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence by a corporate representative. 4. Faurecia objects to the EEOC establishing January 1, 2010 to the present as the relevant time period for the examination subject matters. This timeframe incorporates facts and information that are not relevant to this action. Furthermore, the extensive scope of the time period renders preparing for this deposition unduly burdensome. 5. Faurecia objects to each examination subject matter that requests and/or requires testimony relating to any plant, facility, and/or operations other than Faurecia's plant in Madison, Mississippi. 6. Faurecia objects to each examination subject matter that is duplicative to discovery previously conducted, that is available through less expensive means, that is available from third parties, or that is publicly available. 7. Faurecia objects to the Notice to the extent that the deposition cannot be completed in one (1) day of seven (7) hours pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30(d)(1). 8. Faurecia incorporates these objections into each response set forth below. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 2 of 28 -3- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DESIGNATION DESIGNATION 1. The facts underlying, related to and supporting the defenses, including the affirmative defenses, contained in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to designating a representative to testify about this subject matter. Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that it seeks testimony requiring application of law to fact. Such testimony is not within the permissible scope of Rule 30(b)(6); and thus, an improper request. Further, this request is unduly burdensome as Defendants presented twenty-six (26) Affirmative Defenses in its Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Defendants are not required to marshal all of its factual proof and prepare a witness to be able to testify on a given defense. See In re Independent Serv. Organizations Antitrust Litig., 168 F.R.D. 651 (D. Kan. 1996) (court granted protective order as to Rule 30(b)(6) request for party to produce all of its factual proof and to prepare a witness to be able to testify on a particular defense). DESIGNATION 2. Without disclosing attorney-client privileged information and/or attorney work product, Defendants’ investigation of, inquiry into, and response to, all Charges of Discrimination filed by Claimants identified in the Amended Complaint including, but not limited to, the identities and roles of all persons involved in the investigation, inquiry, and responses, witness names, witness interviews and conversations, factual allegations, physical and testimonial evidence obtained, all determinations, conclusions or findings resulting from the investigation, inquiry, and responses, all discussions, recommendations and decisions regarding Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 3 of 28 -4- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 corrective, remedial or personnel action as each relates to all Charges of Discrimination filed by Claimants identified in the Amended Complaint, and the facts underlying those Charges. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent it seeks testimony duplicative to documents already produced during discovery. Faurecia has produced its responses, including documents it relied upon to support its response, to the EEOC Charges. Further, Faurecia objects to this subject matter because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. See Catt v. Affirmative Ins. Co., 2:08-CV-243, 2009 WL 1228605 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 30, 2009) (topic seeking general testimony about documents produced is improper). By including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves the door open to endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed v. Bennett, 193 F.R.D. 689 (D. Kan. 2000) (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, but not limited to” to be over broad). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to Defendants’ investigation of, inquiry into, and response to, all Charges of Discrimination filed by Claimants identified in the Amended Complaint in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 3. Defendants’ document preservation efforts in response to receipt from EEOC of all Charges of Discrimination filed by Claimants identified in the Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to designating a representative to testify about this subject matter. Faurecia objects to this subject matter on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant. The subject matter potentially seeks testimony with respect Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 4 of 28 -5- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 to retention and storage practices relating to virtually any document or data regardless of type. At no point has Plaintiff suggested that Faurecia has failed to produce documents it requested in this matter. In fact, Faurecia has produced more than 5,000 responsive documents to Plaintiff's discovery requests. As such, this subject matter is improper. See Martin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 292 F.R.D. 361, 363 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (disallowing discovery on document retention policies when there was no evidence to support plaintiff's argument that the defendants may have additional documents it had not produced and defendant's explanation for the manner in which it produced documents was plausible). DESIGNATION 4. Defendants’ recruitment and hiring process specifically related to Defendants’ recruiting efforts at the Madison, Mississippi facility during the period from January 2010 through December 2012. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The subject matter potentially seeks testimony that is not limited to a reasonable time period and not limited to policies related to hourly employees. See Richardson v. Rock City Mechanical Co., LLC, 2010 WL 711830 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 24, 2010) (court limiting in temporal scope topics in Rule 30(b)(6) notice to timeframe when claims arose). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6), limited to the Madison facility between January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 5. Defendants’ hiring/recruitment policies and practices during the period from January 2010 through December 2012, including, but not limited to, when the policy became effective, the length of time it was in effect, how the policy was communicated to Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 5 of 28 -6- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 Defendants' employees, and the circumstances that gave rise to the creation of the policy. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that it presumes the existence of any written policy. Faurecia further objects to this subject matter on the additional grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The subject matter potentially seeks testimony that is not limited to the Madison facility, or limited to a reasonable time period. See Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2012 WL 12884049 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2012) (court limiting in geographical and temporal scope topics in Rule 30(b)(6) notice to facility where plaintiff worked and timeframe up to when the claims arose). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6), limited to the Madison facility between January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 6. Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures in relation to hiring, termination or discipline of employees and applicants with disabilities or employees associated with individuals with disabilities in effect from 2010 through the present, including non- discrimination and accommodation policies, practices, and procedures. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that it implies that Faurecia has taken any discriminatory action against any employee or applicant with a disability or any employee associated with individuals with disabilities, which Faurecia denies. Faurecia further objects to this subject matter on the additional grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The subject matter potentially seeks testimony that is not limited to the Madison facility, or limited to a reasonable time period. See Mailhoit, 2012 WL 12884049 (court limiting in geographical and temporal scope topics in Rule 30(b)(6) notice to facility where plaintiff Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 6 of 28 -7- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 worked and timeframe up to when the claims arose). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6), limited to the Madison facility between January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 7. Shonagh Leonard’s role with regard to Defendants’ recruitment, interview, and hiring process specifically related to Defendants’ recruiting efforts at the Madison, Mississippi facility during the period from January 2010 through December 2012. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The subject matter potentially seeks testimony that is not limited to a reasonable time period. See Richardson., LLC, 2010 WL 711830 (court limiting in temporal scope topics in Rule 30(b)(6) notice to timeframe when claims arose). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6), limited to the Madison facility between January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 8. Defendants’ efforts from 2010 through the present to ensure compliance among its management and staff with the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (“ADAAA”), including any training provided by Defendants to their employees, supervisors, owners, or managers concerning the ADAAA. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that it implies that Faurecia has taken discriminatory actions against any employee or applicant with disabilities or employees associated with individuals with disabilities or otherwise violated the ADAAA. Faurecia further objects to this subject matter on the additional grounds that it is overly broad Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 7 of 28 -8- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 and unduly burdensome. The subject matter potentially seeks testimony that is not limited to the Madison facility, or limited to a reasonable time period. See Mailhoit, 2012 WL 12884049 (court limiting in geographical and temporal scope topics in Rule 30(b)(6) notice to facility where plaintiff worked and timeframe up to when the claims arose). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6), limited to the Madison facility between January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 9. The ownership and organizational structure (including the number of employees in 2010 and 2011), the financial status (including net worth), and all record keeping methods (including computerized files) of Defendants, for the period from January 2010 through the present. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to designating a representative to testify about financial status and recordkeeping methods at this time. The term “financial status” is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Furthermore, information about Faurecia’s current net worth should only be discoverable if the EEOC can successfully establish that it is entitled to punitive damages in this case. The EEOC has not met that burden at this time and thus discovery on Faurecia’s current net worth is premature. The term “record keeping methods” is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. As written, Plaintiff requests all records keeping methods for records that may not be relevant to this matter. Faurecia further objects to this subject matter on the additional grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The subject matter potentially seeks testimony that is not limited to the Madison facility or limited to a reasonable time period. See Indus. Elec. Eng'g & Testing Co. v. Dynalectric Co., 1990 WL 80411(D. Kan. May 18, 1990) ) (holding that Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 8 of 28 -9- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 a request for financial data spanning a five-year period is excessively broad and irrelevant to a claim for punitive damages). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to the ownership, organizational structure, and number of employees at the Madison facility in 2010 and 2011. DESIGNATION 10. Whether Defendants had more than 500 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks during 2010 and 2011. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The subject matter potentially seeks testimony that is not limited to the Madison facility or its takeover on April 4, 2011. See Mailhoit, 2012 WL 12884049 (court limiting in geographical and temporal scope topics in Rule 30(b)(6) notice to facility where plaintiff worked). Further, Faurecia objects to the subject matter as being duplicate of the information sought in Designation No. 9. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to the number of employees at the Madison facility in 2011. DESIGNATION 11. All the reasons Defendants chose to purchase the outfit and employees in the acquisition of Faurecia’s Wood Bridge Farm for their Riverside, Missouri plant. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to designating a representative to testify about this subject matter. This designation is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case. The subject matter potentially seeks testimony that is not limited to the Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 9 of 28 -10- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 Madison facility, or limited to a reasonable time period. Faurecia further objects to this request to the extent that it implies Faurecia has ever “purchased” employees, which Faurecia denies. Moreover, this subject matter seeks confidential and proprietary information of Faurecia, not relevant to the claims or defenses of this matter. DESIGNATION 12. All the reasons Defendants chose to purchase the facility and not the employees in the acquisition of the Madison JCI facility for the Madison, Mississippi plant. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that it presupposes that Faurecia has ever “purchased” employees, which Faurecia denies. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify as to the reasons Faurecia chose to purchase the Madison facility, but did not agree to hire all JCI employees. DESIGNATION 13. The identity of all individuals who have had ownership interest in Defendants for the period from January 2010 through the present, including: a. The date(s) such ownership was acquired through purchase or transfer; and b. The date(s) such ownership interest terminated, if applicable. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The subject matter potentially seeks testimony that is not limited to the Madison facility, or limited to a reasonable time. See Mailhoit, 2012 WL 12884049 (court limiting in geographical and temporal scope topics in Rule 30(b)(6) notice to facility where plaintiff worked and timeframe up to when the claims arose). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify as to the ownership of the Madison facility from January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 10 of 28 -11- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 DESIGNATION 14. All of the reasons Nissan told Defendants regarding why it wanted Defendants to take over the Madison plant from JCI in 2012. RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify as to this subject matter. DESIGNATION 15. Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures in relation to their “due diligence” process regarding the purchase/takeover of the JCI facility in Madison, Mississippi in 2011, including but not limited to the acquisition of the facility, the decision to not purchase the former JCI employees with the acquisition, evaluation of the JCI Madison, Mississippi financial data, and all other acquisition assessment evaluated. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that it presupposes that Faurecia has ever “purchased” employees, which Faurecia denies. Faurecia further objects to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. By including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves the door open to endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed, 193 F.R.D. 689 (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, but not limited to” to be over broad). Similarly, “all other acquisition assessment evaluated” is overly broad. Moreover, Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that is duplicative of previous discovery. See Response to Interrogatory No. 9. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to its due diligence process regarding the purchase of the Madison facility. DESIGNATION 16. All documents supplied by Kimberly Draga to Shonagh Leonard, including, but not limited to, plans in regard to the acquisition of the JCI Madison, Mississippi Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 11 of 28 -12- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 facility, documents listing employees of the JCI Madison, Mississippi facility, disciplinary log sheets, quality issue records, payroll records, and all of JCI's supplied data. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to designating a representative to testify about this subject matter. Faurecia objects to this subject matter because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. By including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves open the door to the endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed, 193 F.R.D. 689 (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, but not limited to” to be over broad). Further, the phrase “all documents” is overly broad and unduly burdensome. See Catt, 2009 WL 1228605 (topic seeking general testimony about documents produced is improper). As it is written, Plaintiff seeks documents wholly irrelevant to the claims in this matter. Moreover, Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that is duplicative of previous discovery. DESIGNATION 17. All documents supplied by Deirdre (sic) Bolton to Shonagh Leonard, including, but not limited to, plans in regards to the acquisition of the JCI Madison, Mississippi facility, documents listing employees of the JCI Madison, Mississippi facility, disciplinary log sheets, quality issue records, payroll records, and all of JCI's supplied data. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to designating a representative to testify about this subject matter. Faurecia objects to this subject matter because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. By including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves open the door to the endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed, 193 F.R.D. 689 (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, but not limited to” to be over broad). Further, the phrase “all documents” is overly Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 12 of 28 -13- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 broad and unduly burdensome. See Catt, 2009 WL 1228605 (topic seeking general testimony about documents produced is improper). As it is written, Plaintiff seeks documents wholly irrelevant to the claims in this matter. Moreover, Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that is duplicative of previous discovery. DESIGNATION 18. All details regarding the document entitled, “Mufasa Due Diligence List” (EEOC0000080 through EEOC0000099), including but not limited to, the reason(s) the document was created, the name(s) and position(s) of the person(s) who created the document, and the name(s) and position(s) of the person(s) who maintained the document, the name(s) and position(s) of all person who had access to the document, and the name(s) and position(s) of all persons who had authority to edit the document. RESPONSE: Faurecia further objects to this subject matter on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. By including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves open the door to the endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed, 193 F.R.D. 689 (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, but not limited to” to be over broad). The subject matter potentially seeks testimony that is not limited to a reasonable time period. Moreover, it is not possible to designate one or more representative to testify as to “all details” regarding the document. Moreover, Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that is duplicative of previous discovery. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify in regards to this subject matter, limited to items related to hiring and staffing from January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 19. All of the criteria used by Defendants to determine which JCI Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 13 of 28 -14- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 employees it would hire following the purchase/takeover of the JCI facility in Madison, Mississippi, and which JCI employees Defendants would not hire. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that it is duplicative of other discovery. See Response to Interrogatory No. 3. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify in regards to this subject matter pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 20. Information regarding the decision-making process that established selection standards for positions filled in Madison, Mississippi, including the identity of each participant in the process, whether this process had been used previously, and who made assignments to staff for implementation. RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify in regards to this subject matter pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 21. All of the reasons why Defendants chose to not hire approximately 50 of the former JCI employees who applied to work. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that it is duplicative of other discovery. See Response to Interrogatory No. 3. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify in regards to this subject matter pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 22. All of the reasons why Shonagh Leonard chose to not hire approximately 50 of the former JCI employees who applied to work. RESPONSE: See Response to Designation 21. DESIGNATION 23. Details regarding the authorization permitting Defendants’ review Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 14 of 28 -15- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 of former JCI Madison employee personnel documents, the spreadsheet created by Shonagh Leonard that summarized the 2009 and 2010 discipline history of JCI hourly employees, the list compiled by Shonagh Leonard of the JCI hourly employees who violated quality standards in 2009 and 2010, and the snapshot of the two time periods, August through September 2010 and November 2010 through January 2011. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that incorrectly presupposes that Shonagh Leonard created a spreadsheet that summarized the 2009 and 2010 discipline history of JCI hourly employees or compiled a list of JCI hourly employee who violated quality standards in 2009 and 2010, which she did not. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 24. Details regarding all information regarding former JCI Madison employees that was shared by JCI and reviewed by Defendants, including but not limited to, employment applications, performance evaluations or reviews, disciplinary records, earnings and payroll records, and documentation regarding job titles held. RESPONSE: Faurecia object to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome in that “Details regarding all information” is undefined and extremely vague. Further, by including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves open the door to the endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed, 193 F.R.D. 689 (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, but not limited to” to be over broad). Faurecia further objects to this subject matter to the extent that it presupposes that Faurecia received copies, or was otherwise provided with Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 15 of 28 -16- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 “performance evaluations or reviews” or “disciplinary records.” Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 25. All application documents, interview notes, interview forms, and all related documents created, received or generated relating to the position(s) at issue in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Faurecia received over hundreds of applications and completed nearly 400 interviews between January 19 and 29, 2011. This subject matter encompasses over 800 pages of documents, which have been produced to Plaintiff. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter regarding the Claimants in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 26. All efforts undertaken by Defendants to process Claimants’ applications, including but not limited to the date(s) of all efforts, how the efforts were made (e.g. in- person, email, telephone, letter), what was said and done by whom, and a description of all documents (including electronic documents) generated and/or disseminated in connection with all processes. RESPONSE: Faurecia object to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. The terms “all efforts” and “all processes” are undefined and overbroad. Further, by including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves open the door to the endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed, 193 F.R.D. 689 (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 16 of 28 -17- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 but not limited to” to be over broad). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6) for the period January 1, 2011 to February 7, 2011. DESIGNATION 27. All written or oral communications between JCI and Defendants, or anyone acting on behalf of Defendants, regarding Claimants’ applications for employment from January 1, 2010 to the present, including but not limited to, the date(s) of each communication, how the communication was made (e.g. in-person, email, telephone, letter), what was said by whom, and a description of all documents (including electronic documents) generated and/or disseminated in connection with the communication. RESPONSE: Faurecia object to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. By including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves open the door to the endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed, 193 F.R.D. 689 (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, but not limited to” to be over broad). Faurecia further objects to this subject matter to the extent that is not limited to a reasonable time period and to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or privileged communications. Moreover, it is not possible to identify every possible oral communications that may have occurred over eight (8) years ago. Further, Faurecia objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6) for the period January 1, 2011 to February 7, 2011. DESIGNATION 28. All written or oral communications between Johnson Controls, Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 17 of 28 -18- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 Inc. and Defendants, or anyone acting on behalf of Defendants, regarding issues with former JCI employee attendance prior to the 2011 acquisition of the JCI Madison, Mississippi facility, from January 1, 2010 to the present, including but not limited to, the date(s) of each communication, how the communication was made (e.g. in- person, email, telephone, letter), what was said by whom, and a description of all documents (including electronic documents) generated and/or disseminated in connection with the communication. RESPONSE: Faurecia object to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. By including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves open the door to the endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed, 193 F.R.D. 689 (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, but not limited to” to be over broad). Faurecia further objects to this subject matter to the extent that is not limited to a reasonable time period and to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or privileged communications. Moreover, it is not possible to identify every possible oral communications that may have occurred over eight (8) years ago. Further, Faurecia objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6) for the period January 1, 2010 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 29. All written or oral communications between employees who worked for the WIN Job Center in Canton, Mississippi and Defendants, or anyone acting on behalf of Defendants, regarding Claimants’ applications for employment from January 1, 2010 to the present, including but not limited to, the date(s) of each communication, how the Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 18 of 28 -19- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 communication was made (e.g. in-person, email, telephone, letter), what was said by whom, and a description of all documents (including electronic documents) generated and/or disseminated in connection with the communication, including the Faurecia Applicant Interview Sheet and instructions given to each interviewer. RESPONSE: Faurecia object to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. By including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves open the door to the endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed, 193 F.R.D. 689 (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, but not limited to” to be over broad). Faurecia further objects to this subject matter to the extent that is not limited to a reasonable time period and to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or privileged communications. Moreover, it is not possible to identify every possible oral communications that may have occurred over eight (8) years ago. Further, Faurecia objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 30. Every action Defendants took to assess and seek to determine whether Claimants were qualified for the positions sought, including but not limited to, the date(s) of all efforts, how the efforts were made (e.g. in-person, email, telephone, letter), what was said and done by whom, and a description of all documents (including electronic documents) generated and/or disseminated in connection with all efforts. RESPONSE: See Response to Designation 26. DESIGNATION 31. Any Americans with Disabilities Act training attended by Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 19 of 28 -20- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 employees within Defendants’ Human Resources Department from 2009 to 2010, including but not limited to, the type of training, the date of the training, the length of time the training lasted, and the person(s) conducting the training. RESPONSE: Faurecia object to this request as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. By including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves open the door to the endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed, 193 F.R.D. 689 (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, but not limited to” to be over broad). Faurecia further object to this subject matter to the extent that it not limited to the Madison facility and not limited to a relevant time period. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 32. Defendants’ policies and procedures to ensure that management is complying with the ADA, including but not limited to, how often training on compliance with the ADA is conducted, the annual review of policies, and implementation. RESPONSE: Faurecia object to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. By including the phrase “including, but not limited to,” Plaintiff leaves open the door to the endless possibilities the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent could be questioned about which is improper. See Reed, 193 F.R.D. 689 (court quashed Rule 30(b)(6) notice holding that language “include, but not limited to” to be over broad). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 33. All efforts undertaken by Defendants to ensure that management Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 20 of 28 -21- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 complied with the ADA in regard to Defendants’ recruitment, interview, and hiring efforts at the Madison, Mississippi facility during the period from January 2010 through December 2012. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. “Efforts” is vague and undefined. Faurecia further objects to this subject matter to the extent that is not limited to a reasonable time period. See Richardson, LLC, 2010 WL 711830 (court limiting in temporal scope topics in Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to timeframe when claims arose). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify in regards to this subject matter from January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 34. Defendants’ official positions and policies, including any revisions and interpretations of those policies, reflecting or relating to Defendants’ practices, standards, and procedures concerning medical clearances, pre-employment screening or physical or other examinations of job applicants in effect from January 1, 2010 to the present. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Faurecia further objects to this subject matter to the extent that it seeks discovery of inadmissible evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 407. Faurecia objects to this subject matter to the extent that it is not limited to the Madison facility and not limited to a reasonable time period. See Mailhoit, 2012 WL 12884049 (court limiting in geographical and temporal scope topics in Rule 30(b)(6) notice to facility where plaintiff worked and timeframe up to when the claims arose). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6), limited to the Madison facility between January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 35. The facts and circumstances, and the identity of all persons with Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 21 of 28 -22- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 knowledge and/or documents, related to the following circumstances and events: a. Faurecia’s announcement that it was acquiring the Madison, Mississippi facility of JCI in January 2011, and the reasons why Faurecia made that announcement; b. Faurecia officials’ meeting with JCI’s Madison employees regarding the transfer of ownership, and the reasons why such a meeting was conducted; c. Faurecia’s requirement that all JCI Madison hourly employees complete applications for employment at the WIN Employment Center in Canton, Mississippi and sign authorizations permitting Faurecia to review certain specified information in their JCI personnel files, including information regarding discipline and leave, and the reasons why Faurecia required the signed authorizations; d. The authorization each Claimant executed permitting Faurecia to review JCI personnel documents, including employment applications, performance evaluations or reviews, disciplinary records, earnings and payroll records, and e. documentation regarding job titles held, and the reasons why Faurecia desired or needed to review these documents; f. The list JCI provided to Faurecia of all employees currently on leave from work (other than vacations of less than two weeks), all information requested to be included on that list, and the reasons why JCI provided such a list to Faurecia; g. The list JCI provided Faurecia that detailed employee job-related injuries in the plant over the prior three years, and the reasons why JCI provided such a list to Faurecia; Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 22 of 28 -23- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 h. Interviews of selected applicants between January 19 and January 29, 2011, and the reasons why Faurecia selected the applicants for interviews; and i. The process Faurecia used during February 2011 to inform former JCI hourly employees whether they were receiving offers of employment or whether their application for employment had been rejected. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Further, Faurecia objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 36. The facts and circumstances, and the identity of all persons with knowledge and/or documents, related to Defendants’ allegation of JCI Madison facility’s “troublesome quality record” prior to Faurecia’s 2011 takeover. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Further, Faurecia objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 37. The facts and circumstances, and the identity of all persons with knowledge and/or documents, related to Defendants’ allegation that the Madison overall absence rate was exceedingly high, approaching 13% per day on average. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Further, Faurecia objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 23 of 28 -24- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 38. The existence, terms, and amount of Defendants’ liability insurance coverage for purposes of paying claims payable as a result of the instant litigation. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Further, Faurecia objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery. See Declarations Page, previously produced and Bates labeled, Faurecia0000001- Faurecia000002. DESIGNATION 39. Defendants’ document creation, retention, and destruction policies, including policies applicable to electronic data, time records, pay records, employee medical records, personnel files, and emails. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to designating a representative to testify about its “retention and destruction policies.” The subject matter potentially seeks testimony with respect to retention and storage practices relating to virtually any document or data regardless of type. At no point has Plaintiff suggested that Faurecia has failed to produce documents it requested in this matter. In fact, Faurecia has produced more than 5,000 responsive documents to Plaintiff's discovery requests. As such, this subject matter is improper. See Martin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 292 F.R.D. 361, 363 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (disallowing discovery on document retention policies when there was no evidence to support plaintiff's argument that the defendants may have additional documents it had not produced and defendant's explanation for the manner in which it produced documents was plausible). Faurecia also objects to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify about its document creation policies pertaining to subjects Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 24 of 28 -25- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 listed in the designation in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 40. The creation, retention and location of email and other documents related to the allegations underlying the Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to designating a representative to testify about its “retention” emails and other documents. The subject matter potentially seeks testimony with respect to retention and storage practices relating to virtually any document or data regardless of type. At no point has Plaintiff suggested that Faurecia has failed to produce documents it requested in this matter. In fact, Faurecia has produced more than 5,000 responsive documents to Plaintiff's discovery requests. As such, this subject matter is improper. See Martin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 292 F.R.D. 361, 363 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (disallowing discovery on document retention policies when there was no evidence to support plaintiff's argument that the defendants may have additional documents it had not produced and defendant's explanation for the manner in which it produced documents was plausible). Faurecia also objects to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. The term “other documents” is vague, ambiguous and overly broad. Plaintiff has an obligation to specified what documents it seeks with reasonable particularity. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6). DESIGNATION 41. Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures for collecting the medical information of current employees, including retention and destruction policies regarding same, for the period from January 2010 through the present. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to designating a representative to testify about its “retention and destruction policies” regarding medical information. At no point has Plaintiff Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 25 of 28 -26- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 suggested that Faurecia has failed to produce documents it requested in this matter. In fact, Faurecia has produced more than 5,000 responsive documents to Plaintiff's discovery requests. As such, this subject matter is improper. See Martin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 292 F.R.D. 361, 363 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (disallowing discovery on document retention policies when there was no evidence to support plaintiff's argument that the defendants may have additional documents it had not produced and defendant's explanation for the manner in which it produced documents was plausible). Faurecia also objects to this subject matter as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Faurecia further objects to this subject matter to the extent that it is not limited to the Madison facility and not limited to a reasonable time period. See Mailhoit, 2012 WL 12884049 (court limiting in geographical and temporal scope topics in Rule 30(b)(6) notice to facility where plaintiff worked and timeframe up to when the claims arose). Subject to and without waiving its objections, Faurecia will designate one or more representatives to testify with regard to this subject matter in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6), limited to the Madison facility between January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 42. The knowledge possessed by each person listed in Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures relevant to this case. RESPONSE: Faurecia objects to this subject matter on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Further, Faurecia objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery, and Faurecia’s Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and any amendments thereto speak for themselves. This, the 13th day of March, 2019. Respectfully submitted, Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 26 of 28 -27- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 FAURECIA AUTOMOTIVE SEATING, LLC; and FAURECIA MADISON AUTOMOTIVE SEATING, INC. By Attorneys, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC By: /s/ Jennifer G. Hall JENNIFER G. HALL Jennifer G. Hall (Miss. Bar No. 100809) Juan Hernandez (Miss. Bar No. 104787) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 Jackson, Mississippi 39211 Telephone: (601) 351-2400 Facsimile: (601) 351-2424 E-mail: jhall@bakerdonelson.com jhernandez@bakerdonelson.com J. Randall Patterson (Miss. Bar No. 9012) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 265 Brookview Centre Way, Suite 600 Knoxville, TN 37919 Telephone: (865)549-7000 Facsimile: (965)525-8569 Email: rpatterson@bakerdonelson.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 27 of 28 -28- 4828-3056-5258v1 2832072-000391 03/13/2019 I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing Objections and Response to Plaintiff's Second Amended Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system. This, the 13th day of March, 2019. /s/ Jennifer G. Hall Jennifer G. Hall Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 194 Filed 03/13/19 Page 28 of 28