Sun State Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

SUN STATE FORD, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:23-cv-1728-PGB-LHP

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant

ORDER

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following

motion filed herein:

MOTION: PLAINTIFF, SUN STATE FORD, INC.’S MOTION

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT,

FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S 30(B)(6) CORPORATE

REPRESENTATIVE FOR DEPOSITION AND

INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW (Doc.

No. 62)

FILED: July 3, 2025

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part.

Plaintiff Sun State Ford, Inc., filed a complaint against Defendant Ford Motor

Company alleging various breach of contract and state law claims related to a

franchise agreement, a dealer agreement, and Defendant’s now-discontinued “Ford

EV Program.” Doc. No. 1. Discovery closes on July 31, 2025. Doc. Nos. 46, 63.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel the continued

deposition of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative. Doc. No. 62.

Plaintiff contends that it properly noticed Defendant’s corporate representative for

deposition on June 30, 2025, and provided a list of 15 Topics. Id., at 1-2; Doc. No.

62-1. On June 24, 2025, Ford served its objections to the Topics, and as relevant to

the present motion, objected to and refused to produce a corporate representative

to testify as to the following three Topics:

12. All information referenced or relied upon in establishing the

requirements of the Ford EV Program, including any studies,

analyses, models, or evaluations conducted by Ford or on Ford’s

behalf with respect to the establishment of the requirements of

the Ford EV Program and the proforma financial statement

provided to SSF.

13. All press releases or public statements issued or made by

Ford relating to the Ford EV Program and communications

relating to any complaints, evaluations, or feedback relating to

electric vehicle sales, training, service or charging capabilities.

14. All information regarding Ford’s cessation of the EV program

including the reasons, studies, analysis or evaluations by Ford to

stop the EV program requirements in order for dealerships to be

able to sell Ford EV vehicles.

Doc. No. 62-2, at 10-14.1

Specifically, Defendant objected to these Topics as overly broad, unduly

burdensome, and not seeking relevant information. Id. Defendant offered to

produce to Plaintiff transcripts from prior depositions and prior trial testimony

from Defendant’s employees regarding the development, issuance, and updates to

the Ford EV Program. Id., at 10. At no time, however, did Defendant move for a

protective order to prevent its corporate representative from testifying on these

matters.

According to Plaintiff, Defendant did not provide any transcripts prior to the

deposition. Doc. No. 62, at 2. Instead, the deposition went forward on June 30,

2025 in Michigan, and Defendant’s corporate representative did not testify as to

Topics 12-14. Id. Defendant’s counsel stated that she could provide prior

transcripts, but would not designate any portions of any transcripts as responsive

to Topics 12-14. Id. Plaintiff thereafter filed the present motion, seeking an order

compelling Defendant to designate a corporate representative to testify on Topics

1 There appears to be a discrepancy between the numbering of the Topics listed in

the notice and the numbering of the Topics listed in Defendant’s objections. See Doc. No.

62-1, at 5 (listing Topics 13-15); Doc. No. 62-2, at 10-14 (listing Topics 12-14). There is no

dispute regarding the subject matter at issue in the present motion, therefore the Court

relies on the numbering from the objections: Topics 12-14. Doc. No. 62-2, at 10-14.

12-14, produce such witness for deposition in Orlando, Florida, not Michigan, and

award fees and costs as a sanction. Id., at 3.

Defendant argues in response that Plaintiff already conducted a more than

six (6) hour deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative, and that any

additional deposition is unwarranted. Doc. No. 64. Defendant further states that

it did produce prior trial testimony regarding the Ford EV Program – albeit

admittedly not until July 3, 2025 (the same day Plaintiff filed its motion). Id., at 1.

Defendant contends that it offered to provide additional testimony transcripts upon

request, but that Plaintiff has not made any such request, and that based on the

volume of discovery already produced, any further corporate representative

testimony would be duplicative. Id. Defendant also reiterates its objections that

Topics 12-14 are overly broad and seek irrelevant information. Id., at 2-3.

However, to the extent the Court agrees with Plaintiff, Defendant urges that the

continued corporate representative deposition only last 40 minutes (the remaining

time from the allotted 7 hours), and be taken in Michigan, and that monetary

sanctions are not warranted. Id., at 3.

Notably, Defendant nowhere identified the prior trial testimony that it

provided to Plaintiff, nor did Defendant request additional briefing in response to

Plaintiff’s motion. See Doc. No. 64; Doc. No. 20, ¶ 7. In its Court-ordered reply

however, see Doc. No. 65, Plaintiff explains that Defendant did not provide any

prior trial testimony regarding the Ford EV Program. Doc. No. 66, at 1-2. Rather,

Defendant provided a single transcript without exhibits from the deposition of a

Michael O’Brien, taken in his individual capacity on May 1, 2023, during an

administrative proceeding before the State of Illinois Motor Vehicle Review Board.

Id., at 2.2 Plaintiff contends that such individual testimony cannot take the place

of testimony from a corporate representative, in particular where Mr. O’Brien

repeatedly answered questions based on his own knowledge and opinion or stated

he did not know, and Defendant’s counsel objected during the deposition on the

grounds that Mr. O’Brien could only speak for himself, not for Defendant. Id., at

2-3. Last, Plaintiff argues that Topics 12-14 are narrowly tailored and directly

relate to components of the Ford EV Program as alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Id., at 5-6.

Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and applicable legal authority,

the Court agrees with Plaintiff. First, it is undisputed that this prior testimony

provided by Defendant was (1) not by Defendant’s corporate representative; (2) did

not involve all of the same issues at play in the present case; and (3) Plaintiff’s

counsel was not present or otherwise involved in that deposition. As such, to the

2 Plaintiff also does not explain who Michael O’Brien is, nor provide a copy of the

deposition transcript.

extent Defendant intended to designate Mr. O’Brien’s testimony during a separate

administrative proceeding as a substitute for its own corporate representative

testimony, that argument fails. Simply put, Defendant’s production of depositions

from other matters does not impact Plaintiff’s entitlement to a 30(b)(6) deposition

here. See Gonzalez v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 5:18-cv-340-Oc-30PRL, 2018

WL 6191319, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2018) (granting motion to compel 30(b)(6)

deposition and overruling objections on the basis that defendant had already

provided prior deposition testimony from its corporate representative, where the

testimony came from other cases where plaintiff’s counsel did not participate, and

numerous topics were not adequately covered in the prior depositions); In re Brican

Am. LLC Equip. Lease Litig., No. 10-md-02183-SEITZ, 2013 WL 5519969, at *8 (S.D.

Fla. Oct. 1, 2013), aff’d sub nom. In re: Brican Am. LLC, No. 10-md-02183-PAS, 2013

WL 12092311 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2013) (granting motion to compel 30(b)(6)

deposition where prior testimony defendant sought to rely upon did not directly

and adequately address all of the topics at issue); DHL Express (USA), Inc. v. Express

Save Indus. Inc., No. 09-60276-CIV, 2009 WL 3418148, at *3-5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2009)

(granting motion to compel 30(b)(6) deposition where same witness was previously

deposed in his individual capacity and finding depositions were not unnecessarily

duplicative because, in part, an individual need only testify based on his own

personal knowledge, whereas a corporate representative testifies on behalf of the

corporate entity and is expected to be prepared to testify as to all noticed topics);

Requa v. C.B. Fleet Holding Co., Inc., No. 06-cv-01981-PSF-MEH, 2007 WL 2221146, at

*2 (D. Colo. July 31, 2007) (granting motion to compel Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

despite defendant’s designation of prior testimony).3

The Court further finds that Topics 12-14 are not overly broad and are

relevant to the issues in this case. Topic 12 seeks information used by Defendant

to establish the requirements of the Ford EV Program and the proforma financial

statement provided to Plaintiff. Topic 13 seeks press releases or public statements

issued or made by Defendant relating to the Ford EV Program and any complaints,

evaluations, or feedback relating to certain aspects of the Program. And Topic 14

seeks information regarding Defendant’s cessation of the Ford EV Program. Doc.

No. 62-2, at 10-14. These Topics are reasonably tailored as to subject matter, and

the time period is not overly long – as alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint the Ford EV

Program was announced in September 2022. See Doc. No. 1, ¶ 38. The Court also

finds Topics 12-14 to be relevant to the claims and defenses in this case – Plaintiff’s

3 The Court further notes that Defendant’s corporate representative failed to

designate any portions of any prior transcripts as responsive to Topics 12-14, and

Defendant has provided no legal authority which would shift the burden onto Plaintiff to

ask for such information. See QBE Ins. Corp. v. Jorda Enters., Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676, 690 (S.D.

Fla. Jan. 30, 2012) (finding that nothing in Rule 30(b)(6) prohibited a corporation from

adopting the testimony of another witness, though a corporate designee would still need

to formally provide testimony indicating same).

case centers on Defendant’s alleged requirement that Plaintiff enroll in the Ford EV

Program, and the harm allegedly caused to Plaintiff from its forced entry into the

Program. See, e.g., Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 36-74, 98-151. Moreover, Defendant has argued

that the cessation of the Ford EV Program is a defense to this case rendering

Plaintiff’s claims moot, further establishing the relevancy of discovery related to

this issue. See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 33, 43. See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Auto Glass Am.,

LLC, No. 6:18-cv-2184-Orl-41LRH, 2020 WL 6064644, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2020)

(“Relevance is ‘construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that

reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may

be in the case.’” (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978))).

Having addressed the substance of the present dispute, the Court now turns

to the issue of sanctions. The Court agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to an additional

corporate representative deposition, and in the absence of any specific temporal

request, will allot one (1) hour for the deposition. See Doc. No. 46, at 4 (limiting

depositions to seven (7) hours absent leave of Court); Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2).4 The

Court further finds that Defendant should be sanctioned and required to pay the

4 The Court finds Defendant’s reliance upon Alvarez v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty., Fla.,

No. 16-60310-CIV, 2016 WL 11896172, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2016) unpersuasive, as in

that case the opposing party had already taken two (2) corporate representative

depositions and provided no good cause for extending the time to take a third.

reasonable fees and costs for Plaintiff filing its motion to compel and reply, as well

as the court reporter and/or videographer costs of the additional deposition. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). The legal authority is clear that Defendants’ attempt to

point to prior testimony from an administrative proceeding runs afoul of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), and Defendant never sought a protective order or

any other relief – rather Defendant merely chose not to provide a corporate

representative as to Topics 12-14. The Court does not find Defendant’s position to

be substantially justified in this regard, and therefore will award these sanctions.

See United States Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Qualtool, Inc., No. 5:21-cv-229-

ACC-PRL, 2022 WL 16695172, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2022) (awarding sanctions in

granting a motion to compel a corporate representative deposition and noting that

“[w]hen a corporation disagrees with the deposition notice, it cannot decide on its

own to ignore the notice.” (citations and quotations omitted)).5

The Court does not, however, find Plaintiff’s additional requirement that the

deposition take place in Orlando rather than Michigan to be appropriate. First,

5 Defendant’s reliance on Max v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 8:11-cv-1540-

T-33EAJ, 2013 WL 12156102, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2013) is unpersuasive. In that case,

the motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part as to which topics the

corporate representative could be deposed on, and the court stated that sanctions could be

subject to reconsideration as appropriate. Here, the only issue Plaintiff has not prevailed

on is the degree of sanctions to be awarded.

Plaintiff provides no legal authority to support such a request, and admits that the

only basis for making the request is to sanction Defendant. Doc. No. 66, at 7.

Second and relatedly, Plaintiff does not explain why it cannot travel to Michigan

for the deposition – as it previously did – nor why this one-hour deposition cannot

be conducted by remote means. Cf. Nat’l Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Ascendo Res., LLC, No.

6:23-cv-1542-CEM-LHP, 2025 WL 1591695, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2025) (awarding

monetary sanctions for failure to produce corporate representative for noticed

deposition but declining to award additional sanctions).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff, Sun State Ford, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of

Defendant, Ford Motor Company’s 30(b)(6) Corporate Representative for

Deposition and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 62) is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART.

2. Defendant shall produce for a one-hour deposition a corporate

representative in Michigan to testify as to Topics 12-14 (see Doc. No. 62-2, at 10-14).

On or before Wednesday, July 23, 2025, the parties shall meet and agree upon a

date for the deposition to take place prior to the close of discovery, July 31, 2025.

The parties shall file a joint notice with the Court no later than Thursday, July 24,

2025 identifying the date and time of the deposition. Defendant shall be

responsible for any court reporter and/or videographer fees incurred during the

deposition.

3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff and

Defendant shall meet and confer in good faith to determine an amount of reasonable

fees and expenses that should be awarded to Plaintiff for the filing of the present

motion and Court-ordered reply. By this same deadline, the parties shall file a joint

notice of the amount agreed upon. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement

by that time, within seven (7) days thereafter, Plaintiff shall file a motion, supported

by appropriate documentation, for reasonable fees and expenses incurred in filing

the present motion.

4. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 62) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 21, 2025.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Parties

-11-