Tundra Mountain Holdings, LLC v. Markel Insurance Company

WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
TUNDRA MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY, )
) No. 4:20-cv -0023-HRH
Defendant. )
_______________________________________)
O R D E R
Motion for Sanctions re Carden Deposition1
Plaintiff moves for sanctions regarding the Federal Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
defendant’s designated witness, Tommy Carden. The motion is opposed.2 Oral argument
has not been requested and is not deemed necessary.
The instant motion is a plaintiff’s version of an earlier motion for sanctions in con-
nection with the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of plaintiff and Alaska Auto Rental, Inc.3 Plain-
tiff’s expert witness did a miserable job of preparing for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
Tundra and Alaska Auto Rental. As a result, sanctions were imposed. Plaintiff now con-
1Docket No. 125.
2Docket No. 130.
3Order Granting Motion for Sanctions (July 17, 2023), Docket No. 121.
Order – Motion for Sanctions re Carden Deposition - 1 -
Case 4:20-cv-00023-HRH Document 138 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 3

tends that defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, like plaintiff’s deponent, failed to properly
prepare for his deposition.
As plaintiff aptly observes:
The duty to prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) designee goes beyond
matters personally known to the witness or to matters in which
the designated witness was personally involved. The duty to
produce a prepared witness on designated topics extends to
matters not only within the personal knowledge of the witness
but on matters reasonably known by the responding party.
Great American Insurance Co. of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., Inc., 251 F.R.D. 534,
539 (D. Nev. 2008).
As plaintiff points out, Markel’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent was obligated to prepare
himself as regards eight specific subject areas.4
Plaintiff complains that defendant did not produce any documents in connection
with the Carden deposition. The parties disagreed over whether documents should have
been produced; and, in the end, no timely motion for production of the documents in ques-
tion was filed.
To the extent that counsel for plaintiff sought to depose Carden on subjects beyond
the eight topics, plaintiff has no basis for complaint.
Finally, and most importantly, the parties disagree sharply as to whether Carden
adequately prepared himself for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Based upon defendant’s
showing,5 the court is satisfied and finds that Carden adequately prepared himself to be
deposed on the eight topics contained in his deposition notice.
4Memorandum in Support of Motion for Sanctions at 1-2, Docket No. 125-1.
5Opposition to Motion for Sanctions at 9-12, Docket No. 130, and Exhibit F
thereto, 1 to 33, Docket No. 130-8.
Order – Motion for Sanctions re Carden Deposition - 2 -
Case 4:20-cv-00023-HRH Document 138 Filed 08/31/23 Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions regarding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Markel
Insurance Company is denied.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 31st day of August, 2023.
/s/ H. Russel Holland
United States District Judge
Order – Motion for Sanctions re Carden Deposition - 3 -
Case 4:20-cv-00023-HRH Document 138 Filed 08/31/23 Page 3 of 3