Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Fred Meyer Stores Inc

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER ~ 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED MEYER STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

No. 4:24-C V-05085-SAB

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order Precluding
Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of EEOC Investigator(s), ECF No. 53, and
related Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 54. The motions were heard without oral
argument. Plaintiff is represented by Arthur D. Welton, Brian Hong, and Damien
Lee. Defendant is represented by Barry Hartstein, Christine Sargent, Jordan Wada,
Megan Crowhurst, and Rachael Curtis.
Plaintiff seeks a protective order to preclude Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition of EEOC Investigator Bryne Moore. On June 18, 2026, Defendant
noted the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of EEOC Investigator Bryne Moore or other
investigator(s) for July 21, 2026.
//
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
Aug 12, 2026
Case 4:24-cv-05085-SAB ECF No. 76 filed 08/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER ~ 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Here, as an initial matter, the Rule 30(b)(6) Notice is defective. Generally, a
Rule 30(b)(6) Notice names the organization as the deponent rather than a specific
individual. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). The organization itself then designates one or
more officers, directors, or managing agents to testify on its behalf. Id.; see also
Risinger v. SOC, LLC, 306 F.R.D. 655, 662 (D. Nev. 2015) (citation omitted)
(“The rule “gives the corporation being deposed more control by allowing it to
designate and prepare a witness to testify on the corporation’s behalf.”) The
designated person then testifies about information known or reasonably available
to the organization and their answers bind the entity. Id. (citation omitted) (“A
Rule 30(b)(6) designee represents the corporation’s position on noticed topics.).
Thus, the testimony of a Rule 30(b)(6) designee represents the knowledge of the
corporation, not the individual deponents. Id.
Defendant did not name the EEOC in its Notice, rather it identified the
person it wished to depose. This is not proper under the Rule. It is up to EEOC to
determine who will appear and provide the information, not Defendant. Moreover,
Defendant has not identified what non-privilege and relevant information it wants
to solicit from the deposition that it does not already have, what factual ambiguities
need to be addressed in the deposition or why it cannot obtain substantially
equivalent information by other means without undue hardship.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order Precluding Defendant’s Rule
30(b)(6) Deposition of EEOC Investigator(s), ECF No. 53, is GRANTED.
//
//
//
//
//
Case 4:24-cv-05085-SAB ECF No. 76 filed 08/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER ~ 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 54, is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order
and forward copies to counsel.
DATED this 12th day of August 2026.

Case 4:24-cv-05085-SAB ECF No. 76 filed 08/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3