ORDER Plaintiff Luissa Janssen Harger Da Silva requests sanctions against Defendants New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”), Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”), and Raqia Shabazz for producing an “unknowledgeable, unprepared and evasive” Rule 30(b)(6) witness and seeks an Order “precluding the Defendants from disputing or contradicting [the witness's] testimony,” adverse inferences, and resolution of “certain issues in accordance with documents previously exchanged by Defendants in discovery and other testimony previously given by Defendants.” See ECF No. 222. Defendants opposed the motion. See ECF Nos. 223, 224, 225. Plaintiff replied. See ECF No. 226. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. I. Background Plaintiff initiated this action over six years ago, in August 2017. See ECF No. 1. During the course of the litigation, Defendants produced 60,000 pages of documents and 15 witnesses for deposition, including a former president of NYCTA and a former chairman and chief executive of the MTA, resulting in over 4,000 pages of testimony. See ECF No. 206 at 2; 225 at 1. In April 2022, after Plaintiff had already taken nine fact depositions, including a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Rick Ryan, Chief Officer of the MTA’s Department of Information Technology Infrastructure, see ECF No. 97 at 5, Plaintiff sought leave to exceed the deposition number and time limitations set forth in Rule 30, “conservatively estimat[ing] that 30-40 depositions would not be unreasonable.” See ECF No. 168. The Court permitted Plaintiff to depose “up to fifteen witnesses given the breadth of issues in this case” and denied Plaintiff’s request to exceed the seven-hour deposition limitation. See 5/26/2022 Order. The Court further stated that “[c]ounsel have been directed to discuss these issues several times, including most recently in the Court’s 3/10/2022 Order” and that “[g]iven the impending close-of-fact discovery date, counsel must expeditiously schedule and conduct the depositions.” See id. On July 8, 2022, nearly five years after initiating this action, Plaintiff stated her intention to serve a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, stating that “Plaintiff will now be required to serve a detailed Rule 30(b)(6) notice to depose a witness with knowledge of all the different elements and aspects of the varied departments subdivisions and disciplines which are also part and parcel of all of their defenses including their immunity defenses.” See ECF No. 179 at 2. The Court issued an Order stating, inter alia, As to a 30(b)(6) witness, Plaintiff must serve such notice by 7/22/2022. Plaintiff is cautioned that the notice must be clear and concise. The possibility of a 30(b)(6) witness has been discussed since at least the fall of 2020; Plaintiff should be prepared to serve the notice promptly. See Orders dated 10/29/2020, 9/11/2020, 3/18/2020. In particular, counsel were directed to confer as to their deposition issues by the Court’s 3/10/2022 Order. There is no good cause for the delay suggested in Plaintiff’s letter. See 7/11/2022 Order. On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff served a Rule 30(b)(6) Notice on Defendants. The Notice far exceeded the scope of the institutional information referred to in Plaintiff’s July 8, 2022 letter, namely the “elements and aspects of the varied departments[,] subdivisions and disciplines” relating to Defendants’ defenses. See ECF No. 179 at 2. The Notice identifies 11 general categories and 32 topics, many containing subtopics, about which Plaintiff sought to take testimony, including, inter alia, specific knowledge as to platform edge barriers, track intrusion technologies, signage programs, announcements and other safety measures to reduce injuries; fleet purchasing, homogenizing the subway fleet and train door configurations; obligations for reporting to oversight agencies and the information, documents and records required to be provided in connection with reporting; costs; budget; speed policies, safety programs and reports related to speeds of trains entering stations; hazard analysis/investigation; system safety program plans; feasibility studies for platform edge barriers; and ADA requirements for the subway system. See Roth Decl. Ex. A, ECF No. 222-3. Defendants designated Eric Jones, Vice President & Deputy Business Unit Lead — Systems Business Unit for the MTA Construction & Development Unit, as their 30(b)(6) witness. See ECF No. 224 2. Mr. Jones has been employed by the MTA since 1994 and has served in several different roles, including Environmental Protection Specialist, Project Administrator, Construction Administrator, Construction Manager, Program Manager and Program Officer, and a member of the Track Trespassing Task Force. See id. 3. In the months leading up to his deposition, Mr. Jones met with Defendants’ counsel on three occasions, including an over-two-hour meeting and a three-hour meeting. Id.
