Opinion

Carc Inc v. AmGuard Insurance Co

Court
District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Filed
Feb 22, 2024
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

CARC, INC. CASE NO. 2:22-CV-03042

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

AMGUARD INSURANCE CO. MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Compel (Doc. 24) filed by the plaintiff CARC, Inc.

(“CARC”), seeking to compel a date for a 30(b)(6) deposition of AmGUARD Insurance

Company (“AmGUARD”). AmGUARD opposes the motion. Doc. 29.

This suit arises from damage to twenty-six CARC properties by Hurricanes Laura

and Delta, which were insured by AmGUARD. CARC’s motion to compel seeks an order

from the Court to require AmGUARD’s corporate representative to appear for a deposition

during the week of February 19, 2024. The filings submitted by both parties indicate that

CARC’s counsel attempted to schedule the deposition in February several times, beginning

on January 19, 2024. AmGUARD’s counsel states that he attempted to find a date during

the week of February 19, 2024, but he did not commit to producing the corporate

representative at that time. AmGUARD’s counsel now states that its corporate

representative is unavailable for that week but is available the weeks of March 4, 2024, or

March 11, 2024. CARC argues that it needs to take the deposition of AmGUARD’s

corporate representative to understand its global defenses prior to deposing individual

witnesses. CARC also notes that it asked to take depositions first and should be able to

take its depositions prior to AmGUARD.

Counsel should work together to schedule depositions as a matter of professional

courtesy. However, “[w]hile the agreement of counsel on a date for a deposition is

preferred, it is not required by Rule 30. The rule requires only reasonable notice. After

making a reasonable attempt to schedule a deposition on a convenient date, counsel

desiring to depose a witness must simply schedule the deposition and serve a notice, and a

subpoena when required.” NJ Records, LLC v. Boutte, 2014 WL 11515498, at *1 (M.D.

La. Apr. 9, 2014) (quoting Rushing v. Board of Supervisors of the Univ. of La. Sys., 2008

WL 4330186, at *2 n.13 (M.D. La. Sept. 15, 2008)).

CARC counsel may continue to work with opposing counsel on a respective date or

simply schedule the deposition and serve notice. Given the rapidly approaching March 25,

2024, trial date, and what appears to be the lack of any completed depositions, the parties

may also consider whether a continuance of the trial date is necessary.

Accordingly, CARC’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 24) is hereby DENIED.

AmGUARD is ORDERED to make its corporate representative available during the week

of March 4, 2024, as stated in its opposition brief.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on this 22nd day of February, 2024.

t/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.