Myrie v. Riley Power Group, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Curtis Myrie,
Plaintiff,
v.
Riley Power Group, LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:24-cv-00302-MSM-AEM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AMY E. MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Riley Power Group, LLC’s Motion for a Protective Order
Regarding Plaintiff’s Second Amended 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff Curtis
Myrie opposed the motion (ECF No. 13), and Defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 15). The matter
was referred to me for determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(a). 	Based upon my review of the record, the parties’ submissions, and
independent research, the Motion for a Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART as detailed herein.
I. 	Factual and Procedural Background
This litigation arises from an employment dispute in which Plaintiff alleges Defendant
unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against him on the basis of race and violated state and
federal wage and overtime protections. 	ECF No. 1. 	On July 16, 2025, Plaintiff noticed
Defendant’s 30(b)(6) deposition for August 28, 2025, which did not go forward due to scheduling
conflicts. ECF Nos. 11-1 at 2, 11-2 at 5. Defendant objected via letter to the topics in the 30(b)(6)
notice and on October 2, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel issued an Amended Notice of Taking Deposition
Case 1:24-cv-00302-MSM-AEM Document 19 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b) for October 17, 2025. ECF Nos. 11-1 at 2, 11-2 at 14, 23. The
deposition again did not go forward, and on October 29, 2025, Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s
objections. ECF No. 11-2 at 32. On November 7, 2025, Plaintiff issued a second Amended Notice
of Taking Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) for December 1, 2025, the subject of the
instant motion. 	ECF No. 11-2 at 42. 	Defendant did not appear for the December 1, 2025
deposition and filed this Motion for a Protective Order later that day.
II. 	Discussion
A. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) permits a party to name a public or private
corporation as a deponent, who must then designate an individual to testify on its behalf about
“information known or reasonably known to the organization.” 	The 30(b)(6) deposition notice
must “describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination.”
Unless otherwise limited by a court order, parties “may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs
of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A party from whom discovery is sought may move for a
protective order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense,” which can include limiting the scope of permissible discovery. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The party seeking to limit discovery has the burden of demonstrating good cause
for the protective order, which “must be based on a particular factual demonstration of potential
harm, not on conclusory statements.” Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1986).
B. Plaintiff’s Second Amended 30(b)(6) Notice
Defendant generally argues that the second Amended Notice is disproportional to the needs
of the case, overly broad, excessive, and improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and
Case 1:24-cv-00302-MSM-AEM Document 19 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
does not describe the deposition topics with the “reasonable particularity” required by Rule
30(b)(6). ECF No. 11 at 4-5. Plaintiff responds that the topics are directly relevant to his claims
and seek testimony regarding calculation and payment of wages and overtime; how Plaintiff’s
wage complaint was handled; disciplinary and termination policies and how they were applied to
Plaintiff; comparative treatment of other individuals at Plaintiff’s facility; and the corporate
structure at play with regards to Plaintiff’s discipline and termination. ECF No. 13 at 10-11. The
Court will address specific arguments regarding the 30(b)(6) topics in turn.
1. 	Topics for Which No Argument is Made
Defendant makes no argument regarding topics 1.4, 2.3, 3.3, 5.2, 6.3, 7.2, 9.1, 9.3, 12.1,
12.2, or 12.3 and as such, no protective order shall issue regarding those topics. 	To the extent
these topics have already been withdrawn or have been agreed upon by the parties, the parties are
free to proceed pursuant to those discussions. Plaintiff also states that topic 10.1 has already been
withdrawn (ECF No. 13 at 6) and as such, no protective order shall issue regarding topic 10.1.
2. 	Time and Scope Limitations
The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s requested topics are only relevant to the
claims and defenses in the case insofar as they relate to the time period of Plaintiff’s employment,
October 2021 through his termination in October 2022. Thus, the Motion for Protective Order is
GRANTED with regards to Defendant’s requests for time limitations. Topics 2.1, 3.2, 4.4, 5.1,
5.3, 6.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 10.2, 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3 should be time limited to the period from
October 2021 through October 2022.
Defendant argues that many topics are overbroad because they seek information on a
company-wide basis or for positions that Plaintiff did not work. Many of these topics, however,
have already been narrowed to apply only to the Quonset Point facility where Plaintiff worked,
Case 1:24-cv-00302-MSM-AEM Document 19 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
and some have been narrowed to apply only to welders. As drafted, the scope of the topics is well
within the requirements of Rule 26 and Defendant has not demonstrated good cause to further
narrow the 30(b)(6) topics to apply exclusively to positions that Plaintiff worked or that fall under
Plaintiff’s former supervisors. As such, except as otherwise specified in this Memorandum and
Order, Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED as to topics 2.1, 7.1, 8.1, 8.3, 10.2,
10.3, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3.
3. 	Topics Regarding Policies, Procedures, and Practices
Defendant asserts that information pertaining to policies, procedures, and practices is
contained in documents that “speak for themselves,” and argues topics regarding such information
are therefore burdensome and improper. ECF No. 11-1 at 8-9. Plaintiff responds that the 30(b)(6)
deposition is not “redundant of document production” but rather “the only mechanism that
obligates a corporation to provide sworn, binding testimony regarding how its policies were
implemented, interpreted, and applied in practice.” 	ECF No. 13 at 18-19. 	How Defendant
implemented and applied their policies regarding, for example, wages, benefits, discipline, and
anti-discrimination during the time of Plaintiff’s employment are directly relevant to his claims.
Furthermore, many of these topics are already limited to the policies as applied to the Quonset
facility where Plaintiff works, but to the extent they seek company-wide information, those
requests are appropriate given such policies would apply on a company-wide basis. 	As such,
except for as otherwise stated in this Memorandum and Order, the Motion for Protective Order is
DENIED as to topics 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2.
4. 	Topics Seeking Legal Theories
Defendant argues that topics 2.1, 2.2, 8.3, and 11.3 would require the 30(b)(6) deponent to
opine on legal theories. ECF No. 11-1 at 12. Plaintiff responds that he is not asking the witness
Case 1:24-cv-00302-MSM-AEM Document 19 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
to reach any legal conclusions, but rather is seeking the factual basis for how Defendant makes
classification decisions for its welders (Topics 2.1 and 2.2), factual information about disciplinary
actions and termination decisions for similarly situated employees (Topic 8.3), and straight
statistical data (Topic 11.3). ECF No. 13 at 20-22. Based on Plaintiff’s representations, the Motion
for a Protective Order is GRANTED such that Topics 2.1, 2.2, and 8.3 shall be further modified
to seek only the “factual basis for” the information requested. The Motion for a Protective Order
is DENIED as to Topic 11.3 because it seeks only statistical data, not legal theories or work
product. Any additional privilege concerns raised by particular questions can be addressed in the
normal course via objection at the deposition.
5. 	Topics Seeking Comparative Evidence
Defendant argues that Topic 11, which consists of three subparts, improperly seeks
discovery regarding “pattern and practices,” which Defendant correctly states is not typically
available to individual plaintiffs. ECF No. 11-1 at 11; see, e.g., Akpan v. R.I. Hosp., C.A. No. 22-
00267-JJM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130278, at *4 (D.R.I. Aug. 11, 2023); Diaz v. Ashcroft, 301
F. Supp. 2d 112, 115 (D.P.R. 2004) (“A pattern or practice method of proof is almost exclusively
used in class actions[.]”). Plaintiff responds that he is not pursuing a pattern-and-practice theory
of liability, but rather an individual disparate treatment claim, which requires comparative
evidence of other similarly situated individuals. ECF No. 13 at 23-24.
Discovery 	in 	disparate 	treatment 	cases 	“may 	be 	limited 	both 	geographically 	and
temporally” and “limited to employees within certain work units,” but does allow for information
regarding employees “who have suffered similar treatment as the plaintiff.” 	Aponte-Navedo v.
Nalco Chem. Co., 268 F.R.D. 31, 37 (D.P.R. 2010). As previously stated, the Court is granting in
part the Motion for Protective Order for Topic 11 as it relates to a temporal limitation to the period
Case 1:24-cv-00302-MSM-AEM Document 19 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
of Plaintiff’s employment. 	The three subparts already seek information only as it relates to the
Quonset Point facility where Plaintiff was employed and is factually similar to Plaintiff’s claims
in this case. 	Thus, except as otherwise stated in this Memorandum and Order, the Motion for
Protective Order is DENIED as to topics 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3.
6. 	Document Retention
Finally, Defendant objects to Topic 9.2, which seeks information about the “creation,
maintenance, and retention of documents related to Curtis Myrie’s employment, including
timesheets, payroll records, disciplinary records, and termination documentation. ECF No. 11-1
at 9. Defendant argues that there is no evidence Defendant has not retained information relevant
to this dispute. 	Id. at 9-10. 	Plaintiff responds that this topic is relevant to “determining what
documents should exist, what documents may have been destroyed, and whether [Defendant]
maintained accurate records.” ECF No. 13 at 23. As Topic 9.2 asks only about documents relating
to Plaintiff, it is sufficiently narrow. The Motion for Protective Order as to Topic 9.2 is DENIED.
III. 	Conclusion
In summation, Topics 2.1, 3.2, 4.4, 5.1, 5.3, 6.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 10.2, 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3
must be time limited to the period from October 2021 through October 2022. Topics 2.1, 2.2, and
8.3 shall be further modified to seek only the “factual basis for” the information requested. All
other requested relief is DENIED.
/s/ 	Amy E. Moses
AMY E. MOSES
United States Magistrate Judge
February 4, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00302-MSM-AEM Document 19 Filed 02/04/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>