# Carc Inc v. AmGuard Insurance Co

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · February 22, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10196096

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** February 22, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10196096

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10196096. Public record. Not legal advice.