Order | Filed: October 05, 2026
| Entered: October 05, 2026
Avantax Planning Partners Inc et al v. Walloch
Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Texas Northern
Order Setting Deadline/Hearing
ELECTRONIC ORDER:
Plaintiff Avantax Planning Partners, Inc. has filed an 157 Emergency Motion for Protective Order Regarding 30(b)(6) Deposition.
It explains that APP "moves under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 30(b)(6) for an emergency protective order limiting the remaining disputed topics in Defendants' Second Amended Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition"; that "[t]he parties have resolved most of Defendants' thirty-one topics, and APP has proposed specific limitations addressing Topics 1, 13, 17-19, 21, 23-28, and 31"; that "Defendants noticed APP's corporate deposition for October 6, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. Central Time" and "have since advised that they are finished meeting and conferring"; and that, "[b]ecause the remaining dispute directly determines the scope of APP's preparation obligations, APP requests expedited consideration." Dkt. No 157 at 1.
APP filed this emergency MPO on October 6, 2026, at 5:03 p.m. Central Time, which is timely, but not by much. See Orchestrate HR, Inc. v. Trombetta, No. 3:13-cv-2110-P, 2015 WL 1565716, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2015).
As the Court has explained, "[w]hen a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice references multiple topics, the party named in the deposition notice must either move for a protective order regarding each topic or designate a person to testify regarding each topic"; "[f]ailing to appear and testify as to designated topics for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is not excused on the ground that the discovery sought was objectionable, unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for a protective order under Rule 26(c)"; and "a pending motion for protective order only protects a party from designating a witness to appear and testify as to the particular topics addressed in the pending motion." Dennis v. United States, No. 3:16-cv-3148-G-BN, 2017 WL 4778708, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2017) (cleaned up).
And, so, the pending motion for a Rule 26(c) protective order protects APP from presenting a witness to appear and testify as to Topics 1, 13, 17-19, 21, 23-28, and 31, consistent with the scope of APP's objections and pending MPO -- but not as to any other topics.
In its MPO, APP explains that "[c]ourt intervention is now necessary because Defendants have advised that they will not meet and confer further, while APP must prepare its corporate representative for the noticed deposition"; that, "[w]ithout an order defining the permissible scope before that deposition proceeds, APP faces the untenable choice of... standing on objections during the deposition and inviting a later adequacy dispute"; and that APP "seeks an order defining the permissible scope of the remaining topics before its representative is examined on October 6, 2026, on matters exceeding the substantial testimony APP has agreed to provide." Dkt. No. 158 at 4 of 15, 6 of 15.
On the other hand, APP also asks the Court to "stay examination outside [its requested] limits pending the Court's ruling" on the MPO -- acknowledging that the MPO may not be resolved before 8:30 a.m. on October 6. Id. at 12-13 of 15.
The parties may go forward with the deposition on October 6 as to the other topics on which the deposition is not stayed by the filing of the pending MPO and this resulting order. But, as to the pending MPO, the Court isn't conducting an overnight emergency hearing or expedited briefing into the night with a late-night or pre-dawn ruling. And perhaps no party's counsel is expecting that it would.
Rather, Defendants must file a response by Friday, October 16, 2026, and APP must file a reply by Friday, October 23, 2026. The undersigned is aware that the Court has ordered that "[a]ll discovery shall be completed by October 7, 2026." Dkt. No. 123. But, if APP's MPO is denied at least in part, the Court's order resolving the MPO can permit an out-of-time continued Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to proceed on any outstanding topics.
In the undersigned's view, that's consistent with the proper management of this case, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1's overarching directive, and what's required and appropriate under the other governing rules in play here. Cf. Talon Transaction Techs., Inc. v. StoneEagle Servs., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-902-P, 2014 WL 6819846 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2014). The Court appreciates the parties' reported efforts to this point to confer on and narrow the scope of disputed topics in Defendants' notice. But, when Rule 30(b)(6) was amended to require that, "[b]efore or promptly after the notice... is served, the serving party and the organization must confer in good faith about the matters for examination" -- with Advisory Committee commentary that "[t]he process of conferring may be iterative"; "[c]onsistent with Rule 1, the obligation is to confer in good fa... (truncated)