WASHINGTON – The court recently ruled on a motion for protective order filed by the defendants, Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, Toyota), regarding second amended notices of deposition directed to their corporate representatives, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6). Toyota objected to a series of inquiries, which were distilled down to three primary areas:

  1. Overbreadth and disproportionality as to time frame
  2. Overbreadth and disproportionality as to products at issue
  3. Invasion of attorney-client privilege and/or work product protections.

Toyota provided red-lined versions of the second amended notices of deposition to the court, which the court then edited in accordance with its rulings.

With regard to the first area, the court ruled that Toyota did not show that all discovery related to notice and knowledge of asbestos should be limited to a timeframe between 1965 and 1994. Similarly, for the second area, the court ruled that the plaintiffs could seek discovery of information about brakes, clutches, gaskets and heat insulators, rather than limit discovery to the first two types of products, as Toyota argued. Finally, the court adopted Toyota’s additional language regarding the exclusion of clearly privileged materials.

Read the case decision here.