CAGC’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFCV11-01331 RGK (PJWx)
II. The few investigation-related documents Plaintiffs produced thusfar do not substitute for deposition testimony.
Plaintiff Counsel’s contention that their meager document production makesa deposition unnecessary falls flat. Parties are entitled to
forms of discovery.
See Richlin v. Sigma Design West, Ltd.
, 88 F.R.D. 634, 637 (E.D. Cal. 1980)(“[T]he various methods of discovery as provided for in the Rules are clearlyintended to be cumulative, as opposed to alternative or mutually exclusive.”). Anddocuments cannot replace depositions.
Kaplan v. City of Chicago
, 2009WL 1940789, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2009) (“[T]he production of documents is nosubstitute for the live deposition of Plaintiff so that the City could examine herrecollection and view of the facts.”);
Brown v. Carr
, 253 F.R.D. 410, 412 (S.D.Tex. 2008) (“Production of documents is no substitute for a deposition.”) (internalquotation marks omitted). Indeed, courts have permitted exactly what China Agrequests here: a 30(b)(6) deposition of plaintiff’s investigator, even after theplaintiff turned over its investigation file. In
EEOC v. Albertson’s LLC
, thedefendant sought to depose the EEOC’s investigator on the investigation that ledthe EEOC to file suit.
2007 WL 1299194, at **2-5 (D. Colo. May 1, 2007).The court denied the EEOC’s motion for a protective order, because “answers to[relevant/critical] questions may or may not be in the investigation file.”
Accord EEOC v. Cal. Psychiatric Transitions
, 258 F.R.D. 391, 397 (E.D. Cal.2009) (“[P]roviding an investigative file does not relieve the EEOC of its obligationunder Rule 30(b)(6) to provide a witness to answer questions about thosedocuments for purposes of clarification and interpretation.”) (internal quotationmarks and citations omitted).Here, that rationale applies with even greater force because Plaintiffs havenot produced their entire investigation file. Instead, Plaintiffs have produced only18 documents about the investigation, withholding the rest on alleged privilegegrounds—for which they have not yet provided a privilege log. (
Case 2:11-cv-01331-RGK-PJW Document 150 Filed 05/16/12 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:5306