GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC v. QUALITY COLLISION PARTS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS
LLC,
)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:25-mc-00048-JPH-TAB
)
QUALITY COLLISION PARTS, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION
I. Introduction
Before the Court is the unusual circumstance where a party—Plaintiff GM Global
Technology Operations LLC—seeks to compel a second deposition of a lawyer, non-party Jason
Covert, in relation to his representation of Defendant Quality Collision in a criminal matter. GM
deposed Covert once but claims Covert's counsel prevented him from answering too many
questions by raising improper objections of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality under
Indiana and Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6. Thus, GM seeks an order requiring
Covert to sit for a second deposition to answer questions he previously was instructed not to
answer, plus an award of fees and costs. As discussed below, Covert attended his deposition,
walked the tightrope an attorney must walk when subpoenaed for testimony relating to ongoing
representation, and made a good faith effort to answer the questions he believed he could without
violating his duties to his client. Now, GM wants the Court to look at the deposition transcript
and split hairs over whether Covert's counsel lodged proper objections. The Court declines to do
so. Thus, GM's motion to compel a second deposition of Covert is denied. [Filing No. 1.]
Case 1:25-mc-00048-JPH-TAB Document 21 Filed 10/23/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
II. Background
Quality Collision sells aftermarket automotive parts, or replacement parts. [Filing No. 2,
at ECF p. 6.] In July 2022, the federal government conducted a search of Quality Collision's
facilities, seizing products alleged to be counterfeit and patent-infringing. That criminal
investigation remains ongoing. However, the government later determined it lacked authority to
retain patent-infringing-only parts, so those parts were returned to Quality Collision.
GM then filed a civil suit against Quality Collision for patent infringement. [Filing No.
2, at ECF p. 6.] Quality Collision claims GM made false statements to the government and
otherwise misled it, leading to the raid of Quality Collision's place of business. [Filing No. 16, at
ECF p. 6.] Quality Collision countersued GM for the damage caused to its business. [Filing No.
16, at ECF p. 8.] Thus, GM and Quality Collision are currently litigating claims against each
other in the Eastern District of Michigan. GM Global Technology Operations, LLC v. Quality
Collision Parts, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-13026.
The law firm of Taft, Stettinius, and Hollister represents Quality Collision in the ongoing
criminal investigation of Quality Collision and a separate forfeiture action seeking the return of
funds seized by the government. Jason Covert is one of the Taft attorney's representing Quality
Collision in the criminal investigations. As part of its defense to the counterclaims in the civil
litigation between GM and Quality Collision, GM subpoenaed Taft, seeking documents and
testimony concerning Taft's non-privileged communications with the government in relation to
the criminal and forfeiture matters. GM argues this evidence is highly relevant to Quality
Collision's counterclaims against GM and necessary for GM to refute Quality Collision's claims
of improper conduct by GM in the government's investigation.
Case 1:25-mc-00048-JPH-TAB Document 21 Filed 10/23/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
In response to GM's subpoena, Taft produced over 1,600 pages of emails and documents.
However, GM also sought to depose Covert. In lieu of that attorney deposition, counsel for
Quality Collision offered to stipulate that the communications with the government are authentic
[Filing No. 2-3, at ECF p. 3], but GM's counsel rejected that offer and proceeded with Covert's
deposition in Indianapolis on August 21, 2025. At the deposition, Covert was represented by
Taft counsel. Covert's counsel refused to allow Covert to answer nearly every question
concerning the documents Taft produced under the subpoena, citing attorney-client privilege
and/or confidentiality under Indiana and Michigan Rule 1.6. GM takes issue not with the
assertion of attorney-client privilege, but with the questions where counsel only raised broader
confidentiality objections. On September 8, 2025, GM filed the pending motion to compel
seeking a second deposition of Covert, as well as its costs and fees associated with having to re-
depose Covert. [Filing No. 1.]1
III. Discussion
GM argues that counsel's instructions to Covert not to answer questions seeking non-
privileged testimony based on Indiana and Michigan Ethics Rule 1.6—which prohibit lawyers
from revealing information relating to clients absent the client's informed consent or proscribed
circumstances—violated Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 30. [Filing No. 2.] Quality Collision,
by contrast, argues that GM "ignores the elephant in the room here—the fact that it is demanding
a second deposition of a currently-acting criminal defense lawyer." [Filing No. 16, at ECF p. 9.]
The parties cite and disagree on whether various case law regarding Rule 30 applies in this
1 GM's motion and the responsive briefs that followed include the phrase "oral argument
requested" on the first page. This request is denied.
Case 1:25-mc-00048-JPH-TAB Document 21 Filed 10/23/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
circuit and ask the Court to quibble over whether Covert—through counsel—lodged improper
objections related to confidentiality and refused to answer too many questions.
The Court declines the invitation to wade further into this dispute. Taft responded to the
subpoena, provided GM with over 1,600 documents, and agreed to stipulate to the authenticity of
those documents. Covert, an attorney actively representing Quality Collision in an ongoing
criminal investigation, showed up and sat for a deposition—despite warning GM ahead of time
of concerns that this would be a waste of time and resources. The Court has reviewed the
deposition transcript, which demonstrates Covert (and his counsel) thoughtfully and deliberately
listened to every question, answered what he believed he could answer without disturbing his
ethical and professional responsibilities to his current client, and made a good faith effort to
proceed with the deposition. The situation does not warrant a second deposition of Covert, nor
does it entitle GM to its fees and costs. Accordingly, GM's motion to compel is denied. [Filing
No. 1.]
IV. Conclusion
For all these reasons, GM's motion to compel a second deposition of Covert is denied.
[Filing No. 1.]
Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email
Date: 10/23/2025
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Case 1:25-mc-00048-JPH-TAB Document 21 Filed 10/23/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>