Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Faurecia Automotive Seating, LLC

Response in Opposition re Response in Opposition re NOTICE to Take Deposition of Rule 30

S.D. Miss.March 28, 2019

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ) OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: v. ) 3:17-cv-757-DPJ-FKB ) FAURECIA AUTOMOTIVE ) SEATING, LLC; ) FAURECIA MADISON AUTOMOTIVE ) SEATING, INC. ) ) Defendants. ) PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter, the “Commission” or “EEOC”) responds to Defendants, Faurecia Automotive Seating, LLC and Faurecia Madison Automotive Seating, LLC, (“Faurecia”)’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition (Doc. 194) (the “Amended Notice”) as follows: BACKGROUND AND GENERAL RESPONSE The Commission filed its first Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition on March 9, 2018 (Doc. 88). Faurecia filed its Objections and Responses on May 3, 2018. (Doc. 124). Counsel for all parties conferred telephonically on May 31, 2018 and discussed the disputed designated topics. In the interest of compromise, the Commission agreed to withdraw many designated topics and filed its Second Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition on March 12, 2019. (Doc. 193). Faurecia filed its objections to the Commission’s Second Amended Notice on March 13, 2019 (Doc. 194) alleging that the Amended Notice is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of this case. Faurecia has agreed to provide certain testimony in response Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 35 2 to the Commission’s 30(b)(6) topics and the Commission has agreed to limit the scope of some topics. But Faurecia’s offered 30(b)(6) testimony remains deficient. The Commission states its position as follows: 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees. That the Commission would need deposition testimony on the facts underlying Faurecia’s defenses and affirmative defenses and responses is unremarkable, and Faurecia’s argument that this designation is unduly burdensome is inaccurate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 2 of 35 3 However, in the interest of Compromise, the Commission will agree to amend this designated topic area and limit the scope to Defendants’ Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Affirmative Defenses. Testimony regarding each of these topic areas could reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. 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 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). Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 3 of 35 4 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission agrees to limit the scope of this designated topic to Defendants’ investigation of, inquiry into, and response to, all Charges of Discrimination filed by Claimants identified in the Amended Complaint. 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 to Defendants’ 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees. Faurecia’s cited case is contrary to the ruling in Abstrax, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyEyeglasses, 2015 WL 11197823 *2 (E.D. Tex. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 4 of 35 5 2015) (ordering the designation of a corporate representative to testify with respect to document retention policies.) 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the testimony should be limited to only January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. There is evidence in the record that suggests that decisions relating to Defendants’ recruitment and hiring process specifically related to Defendants’ recruiting efforts at the Madison, Mississippi facility may have been made as early as June 2010. This time period reasonably allows the Commission to obtain information relating to recruitment and hiring process, including any changes to this process both prior to the events giving rise to the current suit and following Claimants’ last date of employment. See Meltzer/Austin Rest. Corp. v. Benihana Nat. Corp., 2013 WL 1293718, at *5–6 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2013)(order compelling production regarding Defendant’s standards, including any changes to these standards both prior to the events Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 5 of 35 6 giving rise to the current suit and following Plaintiff's termination, while protecting Defendant from unreasonably broad discovery). However, in the interest of Compromise, the Commission will agree to amend this designated topic area and limit the time period from June 1, 2010 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 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the testimony should be limited to only January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011 or to the Madison, Mississippi facility. As stated earlier, there is evidence in the record that suggest that decisions relating to Defendants’ hiring/recruitment policies and practices at the Madison, Mississippi facility may have been made as early as June 2010. Furthermore, the Commission can illicit testimony regarding whether the policies and Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 6 of 35 7 practices Faurecia applied to the Madison facility for hiring were different from the policies and practices they applied at other locations during the same time period. See Foster v. Boise Cascade, Inc., 10 F.E.P. 1287 (S.D.Tex.1974) (discovery as to nationwide corporate structure of defendant was proper because evidence of discrimination would justify the granting of an injunction to cover the breadth of geographically proved discrimination and because there was evidence of transfer of managerial personnel between defendant's plants). In the interest of Compromise, the Commission will agree to amend this designated topic area and limit the time period from June 1, 2010 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 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. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 7 of 35 8 EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the testimony should be limited to only January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. Evidence in the record suggest that decisions relating 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 may have been made as early as June 2010. In the interest of Compromise, the Commission will agree to amend this designated topic area and limit the time period from June 1, 2010 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the testimony should be limited to only January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. Evidence in the record suggest that decisions relating Shonagh Leonard’s role with regard to Defendants’ recruitment, interview, and hiring process specifically related to Defendants’ recruiting efforts at the Madison, Mississippi facility may have been made as early as June 2010. In the interest of Compromise, the Commission will agree to amend this designated topic area and limit the time period from June 1, 2010 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 8. Defendants’ efforts from 2010 through the present to ensure Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 8 of 35 9 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 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the testimony should be limited to only January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. Evidence in the record suggest that decisions relating Defendants’ efforts 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 at the Madison, Mississippi facility may have been made as early as June 2010. In the interest of Compromise, the Commission will agree to amend this designated topic area and limit the time period from June 1, 2010 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 Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 9 of 35 10 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 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that 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. district courts in this circuit have found that “evidence of net worth is relevant, discoverable, and admissible at trial to evaluate a plaintiff's punitive damage claim.” Wright v. Weaver, No. 4:07–cv–369, 2009 WL 5170218, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Dec 18, 2009) (citing Ferko v. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 10 of 35 11 Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 218 F.R.D. 125, 137 (E.D.Tex.2003)). This is not a case in which the issues of liability and punitive damages have been bifurcated, which may permit a defendant to delay discovery until the punitive damage phase of trial. See, e.g., Mahoney v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 487 F.Supp.2d 780, 798 (S.D.Tex.2006). Lastly, there has yet to be a finding that the Commission is not entitled to a jury consideration on punitive damages. 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the number of employees should be limited to the Madison facility. Section 1981a of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 places a cap on certain types of compensatory damages and punitive damages that may be awarded in a Title VII case, depending on the number of employees employed by the liable employer. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D) caps the sum of “the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses” and the “amount of punitive damages awarded under this section” at $300,000 for companies with “more than 500 Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 11 of 35 12 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” Evidence in the record illustrates that Defendants owned and operated more than just the Madison, Mississippi facility. The Commission’s inquiry is simply for the purpose of determining the applicable statutory cap on compensatory and punitive damages under 1981a. More importantly, this information is relevant to a jury's decision concerning how large an award of punitive damages would dissuade the employer from repeating its unlawful behavior. U.S. E.E.O.C. v. IESI Louisiana Corp., 2010 WL 2342393, at *2 (W.D. La. June 3, 2010) (requests for number of employees is largely appropriate). 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 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission will agree to amend its Amended Notice and not address this designated topic area during Defendants’ 30(b)(6) Deposition. 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 Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 12 of 35 13 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission will agree to amend this designated topic area with regard 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the testimony should be limited to only January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. Evidence in the record suggest that decisions relating to the scope of this designated topic at the Madison, Mississippi facility may have been made as early as June 2010. In the interest of Compromise, the Commission will agree to amend this designated topic area and limit the time period from June 1, 2010 to June 1, 2011. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 13 of 35 14 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. DESIGNATION 16. All documents supplied by Kimberly Draga to Shonagh Leonard, Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 14 of 35 15 including, but not limited to, plans in regard 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 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the subject matter is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or seeking general testimony. Rule 26(c) permits discovery of “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Here, Defendants receipt of documents supplied by JCI as a whole could bear on issues in this case because Plaintiff seeks to determine what information Defendants used to govern which employees it would hire during the 2011 acquisition of the JCI Madison, Mississippi facility. Courts have allowed discovery that was not limited to a party's individual claim where it otherwise could lead to relevant information. For example, in a RICO case that involved fraudulent processing of a plaintiff's disability claim, a deposition topic requesting reports for all disability claims processed Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 15 of 35 16 by the benefit center—rather than only the plaintiff's disability claim—was reasonably particular because the plaintiff alleged a pattern and practice of wrongful conduct extending to all disability claims. Rosen v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 2.14–CV–00922–WMA, 2015 WL 4139024, at *10 (N.D. Ala. July 9, 2015), as amended (July 10, 2015); see also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., No. 2:07–CV–279–CE, 2010 WL 276093, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2010) (requiring a deponent in a patent case to testify about the circumstances surrounding license agreements and not only about the agreements' specific terms because notice at issue was described with reasonable particularity). 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 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. EEOC RESPONSE: See EEOC Response to Designated Topic 16. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 16 of 35 17 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 regard to this subject matter, limited to items related to hiring and staffing from January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the testimony should be limited to only January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. There is evidence in the record that decisions relating to the “Mufasa Due Diligence List” and Defendant’s planning of its recruitment and hiring at the Madison, Mississippi facility may have been made as early as June 2010. This time period reasonably allows the Commission to obtain information relating to recruitment and hiring process, including any changes to this process both prior to the events giving rise to the current suit and Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 17 of 35 18 following Claimants’ last date of employment. See Meltzer/Austin Rest. Corp. v. Benihana Nat. Corp., 2013 WL 1293718, at *5–6 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2013)(order compelling production regarding Defendant’s standards, including any changes to these standards both prior to the events giving rise to the current suit and following Plaintiff's termination, while protecting Defendant from unreasonably broad discovery). However, in the interest of Compromise, the Commission will agree to amend this designated topic area with regards to hiring and staffing and limit the time period from June 1, 2010 to June 1, 2011. DESIGNATION 19. All of the criteria used by Defendants to determine which JCI 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 18 of 35 19 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. DESIGNATION 23. Details regarding the authorization permitting Defendants’ review 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). Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 19 of 35 20 EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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 “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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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 Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 20 of 35 21 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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, 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 21 of 35 22 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. DESIGNATION 28. All written or oral communications between Johnson Controls, 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 Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 22 of 35 23 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the testimony should be limited to only January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. Faurecia’s communications with JCI and other third parties in the wake of Claimant’s charges of discrimination are relevant to Faurecia’s denial of any unlawful employment practices. Moreover, any communication between JCI and Faurecia after this suit is filed may be relevant to allegations in this case. BidPrime, LLC v. SmartProcure, Inc., 2018 WL 6588574 at *5 (W.D. Tex. 2018) (ordering discovery to the extent that the requests concern third- party communications in which Plaintiff made representations about the conduct alleged in the pending action.) However, in the interest of Compromise, the Commission will agree to amend this designated topic area and limit the time period from June 1, 2010 to present. 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 communication was made (e.g. in-person, email, telephone, letter), what was said by whom, and Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 23 of 35 24 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. DESIGNATION 31. Any Americans with Disabilities Act training attended by employees Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 24 of 35 25 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 25 of 35 26 DESIGNATION 33. All efforts undertaken by Defendants to ensure that management 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the testimony should be limited to only January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. There is evidence in the record that suggests that decisions relating to undertaken by Defendants to ensure that management complied with the ADA in regard to Defendants’ recruitment, interview, and hiring efforts at the Madison, Mississippi facility may have been made as early as June 2010. This time period reasonably allows the Commission to obtain information relating to recruitment and hiring process, including any changes to this process both prior to the events giving rise to the current suit and following Claimants’ last date of employment. See Meltzer/Austin Rest. Corp. v. Benihana Nat. Corp., 2013 WL 1293718, at *5–6 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2013)(order compelling production regarding Defendant’s standards, including any changes to these standards both prior to the events giving rise to the current suit and following Plaintiff's termination, while protecting Defendant from unreasonably broad discovery). DESIGNATION 34. Defendants’ official positions and policies, including any revisions and interpretations of those policies, reflecting or relating to Defendants’ practices, standards, Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 26 of 35 27 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission disagrees that the testimony should be limited to only January 1, 2011 to June 1, 2011. There is evidence in the record that suggests that decisions relating to undertaken by Defendants to ensure that management complied with the ADA in regard to Defendants’ recruitment, interview, and hiring efforts at the Madison, Mississippi facility may have been made as early as June 2010. This time period reasonably allows the Commission to obtain information relating to recruitment and hiring process, including any changes to this process both prior to the events giving rise to the current suit and following Claimants’ last date of employment. See Meltzer/Austin Rest. Corp. v. Benihana Nat. Corp., 2013 WL 1293718, at *5–6 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2013)(order compelling production regarding Defendant’s standards, including any changes to these standards both prior to the events giving rise to the current suit and following Plaintiff's termination, while protecting Defendant from unreasonably broad discovery). Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 27 of 35 28 DESIGNATION 35. The facts and circumstances, and the identity of all persons with 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 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 28 of 35 29 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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 Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 29 of 35 30 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Commission will agree to amend its Amended Notice and not address this designated topic area during Defendants’ 30(b)(6) Deposition. 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 Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 30 of 35 31 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 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). EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 31 of 35 32 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 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. EEOC RESPONSE: The Parties are not in dispute regarding this designated topic. 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 Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 32 of 35 33 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. EEOC RESPONSE: Rule 30(b)(6) requires that the corporation “make a conscientious good- faith endeavor to designate the persons having knowledge of the matters sought by [the party noticing the deposition] and to prepare those persons in order that they can answer fully, completely, unevasively, the questions posed ... as to the relevant subject matters.” Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 432-33 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and quotations omitted). In addition, the duty to present and prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) designee “goes beyond matters personally known to that designee or to matters in which that designee was personally involved.” Id. “The deponent must prepare the designee to the extent matters are reasonably available, whether from documents, past employees, or other sources.” Id. (emphasis added). Furthermore, a representative must be prepared to testify to as whatever is “within the collective knowledge or subjective belief of [the corporation].” Id. at 434. Here, it is Faurecia’s responsibility to present a corporate representative who does have the relevant knowledge about Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and to act diligently to present them for the deposition or educate its chosen representative on the facts that each person listed in Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures knows. Respectfully submitted on this 28th day of March 2019, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 33 of 35 34 Birmingham, Alabama 35205 Tel.: (205) 212-2045 Email: marsha.rucker@eeoc.gov GERALD L. MILLER AL Bar No. ASB-1454-E52G Supervisory Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, Alabama 35205 Tel.: (205) 212-2047 Email: gerald.miller@eeoc.gov PAMELA B. DIXON Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 820 Louisiana, Ste. 200 Little Rock, Arkansas Tel.: (501) 324-5065 Email: pamela.dixon@eeoc.gov s/Harriett Oppenheim HARRIETT OPPENHEIM Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Dr. A. H. McCoy Federal Building 100 W. Capitol Street, Suite 338 Jackson, Mississippi 39269 Tel.: (601) 948-8454 Email: harriett.oppenheim@eeoc.gov Kurt Fischer ASB-9772-R72F Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place 1130 22nd Street South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 34 of 35 35 Tel: (205) 212-2043 Email: kurt.fischer@eeoc.gov ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 28, 2019, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will electronically send notification of the filing to all attorneys of record. s/Harriett Oppenheim HARRIETT OPPENHEIM Case 3:17-cv-00757-DPJ-FKB Document 196 Filed 03/28/19 Page 35 of 35