The opinion of the court was delivered by: Chief Judge Ambrose
For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiff will be permitted to take additional Rule 30(b)(6) testimony to the extent described below.
Pursuant to the Plaintiff's original 30(b)(6) notice, the Defendants produced for deposition Chase employees Karen Trimmer and Joette Herrera. Plaintiff's counsel believes that the depositions revealed inadequacies in the witnesses' testimony and the Defendant's document production to date. See generally Pl.'s Br. (Doc. 28) at 2-3.
Regarding the documents, the parties appear to be working amicably to secure further production from Chase. See id. at 3 n.1 (discussing additional documents recently provided by Defendant); Def.'s Br. (Doc. 27) at 3 n.5 (parties are working to resolve outstanding issues regarding Chase's discovery responses). As to the testimony, the Plaintiff has served another 30(b)(6) notice and requested the depositions of additional witnesses Michael Farmer and Julianne Martinez, see Pl.'s Br. at 3; why the Plaintiff believes these individuals are better suited to answer the 30(b)(6) inquiries is unclear from his brief. See generally id.
The specific areas of inquiry the Plaintiff wishes to make are as follows:
* day-to-day policies/procedures that customer service representatives follow in speaking with cardholders or non-cardholders about a cardholder account;
* Chase's policies and procedures regarding customer service and fraud prevention, as they are applicable to Mr. Azur's case ( i.e. , identification of authorized non-cardholders before fraud is reported);
* policies regarding authorized users on a Chase account, generally, including how those users may be added;
* identification of cardholder gender;
* security measures that are taken when a Chase customer service representative makes a call to a cardholder to ensure that they are speaking with an authorized individual; and
* Ms. Trimmer's inability to interpret portions of the "account screens" produced by Chase.
Whether these specific inquiries fell within the scope of the original Rule 30(b)(6) notice is debatable. The desired lines of questioning are now clear, however, and given the liberal discovery standards in federal court, they will be permitted in this case. The court notes, moreover, that the Defendant has not resisted on the merits the Plaintiff's challenges to the sufficiency of Chase's document production. Rather, Defense counsel recently has produced additional responsive documents regarding the policies and procedures in question, and more may be forthcoming. To the extent Chase ...