Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Schmid Pipeline Constr., Inc. v. Summit Natural Gas of Me., Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maine

December 23, 2014

SCHMID PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff
v.
SUMMIT NATURAL GAS OF MAINE, INC., Defendant

For SCHMID PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION INC, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: JOHN A. HOBSON, JOSEPH G. TALBOT, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PERKINS THOMPSON, PA, PORTLAND, ME.

For SUMMIT NATURAL GAS OF MAINE INC, Defendant, Counter Claimant: BRET R. GUNNELL, CHARLOTTE WIESSNER, LEAD ATTORNEYS, SHERMAN & HOWARD, DENVER, CO; JOHN P. GIFFUNE, LEAD ATTORNEY, A. ROBERT RUESCH, VERRILL DANA LLP, PORTLAND, ME.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

John C. Nivison, United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for approval to conduct the corporate deposition of Plaintiff in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). Defendant filed the motion in accordance with the Court's directive in its November 13, 2014, Order. (ECF No. 48.)

Through its motion, Defendant seeks to depose Plaintiff's corporate representative on four separate subject areas. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant has already deposed three corporate officers, and has covered the subject areas identified in Defendant's motion. Plaintiff, therefore, objects to Defendant's request to take the corporate deposition.

Although Plaintiff will likely produce for the corporate deposition one or more of the individuals whom Defendant has deposed, that fact alone is not dispositive. That is, the mere fact that certain corporate officers might have been deposed due to their personal involvement in the circumstances that gave rise to this case does not preclude Defendant from conducting a corporate deposition. In addition, while some of the subject areas could have been addressed in part in the prior depositions, the Court is not convinced that the four designated areas were the focus of the depositions. The Court cannot conclude, therefore, that the corporate deposition would necessarily result in duplicative testimony. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's motion. Plaintiff may conduct the deposition of Plaintiff, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6), on the subject areas designated in Plaintiff's motion.

CERTIFICATE

Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.

So Ordered .


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.