CROCS, INC., Plaintiff, v. EFFERVESCENT, INC., Holey Soles Holdings, Ltd., DoubleDiamondDistribution, Ltd., and U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc., Defendants Civil Action No. 06–cv–00605–PAB–KMT United States District Court, D. Colorado Signed January 03, 2017 Counsel Natalie Marie Hanlon-Leh, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, Jared Barrett Briant, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Paul Wayne Rodney, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Denver, CO, Julie Kent, Lara Palanjian, Michael Anthony Berta, Sean Michael Callagy, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff. Dan Cleveland, Jr., Fennemore Craig, P.C., Alexander Christian Clayden, Stephen J. Horace, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Michael G. Martin, Michael Martin Law, Denver, CO, Brian John Elliott, Brian J. Elliott, Attorney at Law, Austin, TX, Christopher W. Hellmich, Hellmich Law Group P.C., Anaheim Hills, CA, David Joseph Kaplan, U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants. Tafoya, Kathleen M, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER 1 This matter is before the court on “Counterclaim Plaintiffs (Dawgs)[1] Motion to Compel Counterclaim Defendant Crocs to Produce Rule 30(b)(6) Witness(es)” [Doc. No. 327] (Mot. to Compel”). “Crocs Inc.'s Opposition to U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Additional 30(b)(6) Witnesses” (“Resp.”) [Doc. No. 349] was filed on December 16, 2016, and “Counterclaim Plaintiffs' (“Dawgs”) Reply in Support of Its Motion to Compel Counterclaim Defendant Crocs to Produce Rule 30(b)(6) Witness(es)” (“Reply”) [Doc. No. 374] was filed on December 23, 2016. Dawgs claims that Crocs has refused to make available a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to address the following topics: 1(a)–(e), 1(j)–(k), 1(p)–(s), 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13. Dawgs has taken twelve and one-half hours of testimony from two Crocs corporate representatives (Resp. at 3–4), however contends that Crocs's proffered witnesses were unable to fully answer questions on the above topics. Crocs asserts that Dawgs' Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is concluded and maintains that it “proffered Erik Olson to testify about a broad range of topics including the identity of the persons across the past ten years who have been responsible for manufacturing Crocs's products (Topic 1.f), the development of the material “Croslite” (1.g), the marketing and promotion regarding Crocs's products (1.h), sales and distribution of Crocs'sproducts (1.i), dealings with FinProject N.A. (1.1 and 1.m), and interactions with Ettore Battiston and Bihos s.r.l. (1.1 and 1.m).” (Resp. at 4.) Further, Crocs states that “for topics relating to information technology, Crocs proffered Rob Grant, Crocs's Vice President of Information Technology, to testify about topics including hardware systems (2.a), software systems (2.b), networking (2.c), messaging (2.d), telecommunications (2.e), databases (2.f), archives and back-up systems (2.g and 2.h), remote accessibility (3.b), disposal of computers (3.c) maintenance (3.d), chain of custody (3.e) storage and archiving (3.f), corporate policies (3.g), electronic records management (4) record storage (5), and the likely location of records (8) and (10).” (Id.) At an informal conference on October 6, 2016, the court, in an attempt to resolve the issues in this motion with less judicial assistance, urged Dawgs to refine and tailor its Rule 30(b)(6) topics to be both more manageable and more precise. Apparently this is not the course chosen by Dawgs. As the parties failed to compromise on the language of any of the contested topics, the court will address the contested topics without an attempt to otherwise narrow or refine the topics. In other words, the topics will stand or fall based on Dawgs' actual vocabulary in the submission, except in the case of a request which would call for, at least in part, privileged information but which is otherwise an acceptable topic. LEGAL STANDARDS *2 “Corporations have an ‘affirmative duty’ to make available as many persons as necessary to give ‘complete, knowledgeable, and binding answers' on the corporation's behalf.” Ecclesiastes 9:10–11–12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co., 497 F.3d 1135, 1146 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Reilly v. NatWest Mkt. Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 268 (2d Cir. 1999)). The topics of a Rule 30(b)(6) examination, however, must first and foremost be relevant. See, e.g., Von Schwab v. AAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1840123, at *2 (D. Colo. Apr. 21, 2015) (discovery directed at irrelevant matters “imposes a per se undue burden”). See Polhemus v. Great W. Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2134362, at *1 (D. Colo. July 15, 2009) (finding topics directed at the functions, duties, and responsibilities of employees were extremely broad and “could conceivably cover ... volumes of information not remotely relevant” to the case). The party noticing a 30(b)(6) deposition is obliged to describe the topics to be covered with “reasonable particularity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Some courts have found that reasonable particularity requires that the requesting party designate “with painstaking specificity, the particular subject areas that are intended to be questioned, and that are relevant to the issues in dispute.” See Health Grades, Inc. v. MDx Med., Inc., 2013 WL 1777575, at *3 (D. Colo. Apr. 25, 2013) (quoting McBride v. Medicalodges, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 581, 584 (D. Kan. 2008)). But see Espy v. Mformation Techs., Inc., No. 08–2211–EFM–DWB, 2010 WL 1488555, at *2 (D. Kan. Apr. 13, 2010)(calling into doubt McBride's “painstaking specificity” standard.) Since the Rule itself requires that topics be defined with “reasonable particularity,” this court sees no reason to graft the word “painstaking” to what is otherwise the clear directive of the Rule that the topic definitions be “reasonable.” Nevertheless, under either standard, an overbroad 30(b)(6) notice “subjects the noticed party to an impossible task” and therefore will not be allowed. Cotton v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2013 WL 3819975, at *1 (D. Kan. July 24, 2013). Further, the recent revisions to Rule 26 emphasize that the information sought must be “proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b). See also, e.g., ChriMar Systems v. Cisco Systems, 312 F.R.D. 560, 564 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) (refusing to order deponent for 30(b)(6) where topics were overbroad and noting that proportionality was “especially true in light of the recently revised Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)”). See also E.E.O.C. v. Vail Corp, 2008 WL 5104811, *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 3, 2008) (proposed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition “unduly broad and burdensome” where testimony would span far more than the allotted seven hours). ANALYSIS Topic 1. Crocs's corporate structure, organization and personnel, including a. all organizational charts, directories, corporate manuals or other documents relating to the identities, functions, responsibilities and reporting hierarchy of Crocs's employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives or independent contractors (including in-house and outside legal counsel).[2] This Topic concerns both information and internal documents reflecting the makeup of Crocs as a corporate entity. In the first place, Topic 1 references no period of time about which the sub-category information is sought, so is unduly broad in that regard. In its Response, Crocs claims it has produced all of the minutes from the meetings of its Board of Directors from 2005 through 2013. (Resp., Ex. A [Doc. No. 349–1] “Callagy Decl.”, ¶ 4.) Crocs claims this provides the composition of the board during all relevant time periods, and also reflects the deliberations of the Board itself, to a greater extent than the testimony of a corporate witness could do. Crocs claims it also produced large volumes of employee lists and organizational information responsive to topic 1(a). (Resp. at 5.) Crocs also states that at the beginning of Mr. Olson's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Dawgs was provided a Declaration of Sean M. Callagy identifying approximately 48 current and former Crocs personnel in response to various of the topics in Dawgs's Rule 30(b)(6) notice. The list provided each employee's start and end date and last known title. *3 The court agrees that the production of documents as outlined by Crocs does not fully respond to Topic 1(a). Although the court finds that it is not proper or reasonable to inquire about the in-house and outside legal counsel since such information might involve privileged information, it is not unreasonable in this case that a witness be prepared to answer questions about the corporate employees and hierarchy during relevant time periods when decision making was happening. However, as the inquiry has no time limitation and as the Plaintiff was given ample time and suggestion to correct and narrow the request to include such a time limitation, it is an impossible task for Crocs to have a properly prepared a witness to testify about all the various employment relationships over the infinity of time and that such a request would likely elicit a large amount of irrelevant evidence. Plaintiff's objections are sustained and the motion is denied with respect to Topic No. 1(a). Plaintiff need not produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on this topic. b. the identities, functions, responsibilities and reporting hierarchy of Crocs's officers and directors and the manner and extent to which Crocs's overall business plan and strategy and material events were and are reported to, considered, approved, ratified or acquiesced to by the Crocs Board of Directors or any other Crocs' officers or individuals. Topic 1(b) seeks information about the people involved and the manner in which Crocs's business plans were considered by Crocs and its Board of Directors without limitation to the issues involved in this case or to the relevant time frame for such a request. For the same reasons set forth with respect to Topic 1(a), Plaintiff's objections are sustained and the motion is denied with respect to Topic No. 1(b). Plaintiff need not produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on this topic. c. the functions, responsibilities, reporting hierarchy, employment history and terms, current relationship with Crocs and last known address of all the individuals named in Crocs's Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, Dawgs' Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, and Crocs's responses to Dawgs' First Set of Interrogatories, and the individuals proposed by Crocs as the e-mail custodians whose e-mails should be searched. Topic 1(c) seeks information about the employment and functions of witnesses Plaintiff Crocs listed in its Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures and those identified as e-mail custodians. Crocs essentially claims it has already produced this information. The court perceives no legitimate and sustainable objection to providing a witness who can talk about persons that a party itself reveals pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1). Crocs claims it presented information and a fully prepared witness “concerning dozens of Crocs-affiliated personnel with knowledge of the few relevant topics encompassed within the 30(b)(6) notice.” (Callagy Decl., ¶¶4–6 & Resp., Ex. C.) Crocs stated that it produced Erik Olson to testify as to similar topics as Topic (1)(c), however did not specifically offer Mr. Olson on Topic (1)(c). Dawgs presents no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Olson was unable to answer questions posed to him falling under the rubric of Topic 1(c). Therefore the court concludes that Dawgs had ample opportunity to examine Crocs's Rule 30(b)(6) on Topic 1(c), that Dawgs has the information it seeks on Topic 1(c) and is therefore precluded from re-opening the deposition on this topic. Plaintiff's objections are sustained and the motion is denied with respect to Topic No. 1(c). d. the identities, functions, responsibilities, reporting hierarchy, employment history and terms, current relationship with Crocs and last known address of Crocs's employees (including in-house and outside legal counsel) who participate(d) in or are/were responsible in any way for acquisition, registration and/or enforcement of intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, trademarks and trade dress, including intellectual property rights related to the subject matter of the Patents in Suit), both in the United States and in other geographic markets (e.g., Canada, Australia and Europe); and the manner and extent to which each individual participated or was responsible. *4 Once again, Topic 1(d) is not limited in terms of responsive time frame. Further, the Topic is not limited to the patents-in-suit and therefore much of the information requested by this topic is likely irrelevant. Dawgs chose not to narrow and define the topic when given the opportunity. For the same reasons set forth with respect to Topic 1(a), Plaintiff's objections are sustained and the motion is denied with respect to Topic No. 1(d). Plaintiff need not produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on this topic. e. the identities, functions, responsibilities, reporting hierarchy, employment history and terms, current relationship with Crocs and last known address of Crocs's employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives or independent contractors (including in-house and outside legal counsel) who participate(d) in or are/were responsible in any way for (i) the decision(s) to commence and continue the instant Action against Dawgs; (ii) the creation, finalization, authorization approval and ratification of the budget(s) for the enforcement of the Patents In Issue and the prosecution and defense of this Action and Dawgs' Counterclaims in particular; and (iii) the decisions to engage in and then terminate settlement talks with Dawgs in 2013; and the manner and extent to which each individual participated or was responsible; To the extent the topic seeks the identities of persons involved in discreet decisions or plans or funding for activities which are defined, the court finds that the topic is sufficiently limited in time to allow a witness to become fully prepared to answer inquiries about the identity, responsibilities, reporting hierarchy, employment history and terms, current relationship with Crocs and last known address of Crocs's employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives or independent contractors (including in-house and outside legal counsel) portion of Topic 1(e) subsections (i)(participated in or responsible for the commencement and continuation the instant Action), (ii)(participated in or responsible for creation of and enforcement of the patents-in-suit) and (iii)(participated in or responsible for the decision to engage in and the subsequent decision to terminate settlement talks with Dawgs in 2013). Each of the subcategories, (i), (ii), and (iii), appear relevant to the prosecution of the case, are discreet activities in scope of time and events involving the case, and are relevant to the defenses to the case and/or to the counterclaims and defenses thereto. The topics do not appear to call for privileged information, and information protected by privilege would not be produced. To the extent the topic seeks information about the “functions” of any of the identified individuals, except for in-house and outside legal counsel, the topic is permissible to the extent is does not call for the revelation of privileged information and describes the role or duties of the individuals identified with respect to their participation in or responsibility for the discreet activity identified in subsections (i), (ii) or (iii). The portion of the topic requiring a witness to be knowledgeable about the functions of in-house or outside legal counsel is impermissible because the topic clearly anticipates and answer which might reveal privileged information. *5 The court agrees that the general use of over-inclusive language asking about individuals who “participated in” or “are/were responsible in any way ” for certain activities can create overbreadth issues in a Rule 30(b)(6) topic. It is the term “in any way” that often causes the greatest problems. This court finds that suspect phrase “in any way” included in Topic 1(e) applies only to modify the term “responsible for.” The court further finds that the phrase “responsible for” is self-limiting and ameliorates the overbreadth issue here. Responsibility connotes a certain level of authority that properly limits the request and would eliminate persons such as the secretary typing or copying documents, for instance. Although one party may define “responsible for” in a way different from another, this does not, in this discrete instance, create an impermissibly overbroad topic for which it would be impossible for a deponent to prepare. Therefore, the Plaintiff's objections to providing a witness to address Topic 1(e) are overruled, with the sole exception of the inquiry about functions of in-house or outside legal counsel, and Crocs shall produce a witness to address the topic. The deposition will be undertaken in Denver, Colorado, and can be conducted by video or other remote means if the parties so choose. The deposition shall last no more than one hour on this topic. j. the identities, functions, responsibilities, reporting hierarchy, employment history and terms, current relationship with Crocs and last known address of Crocs's employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives or independent contractors (including in-house and outside legal counsel) who participate(d) in or are/were responsible in any way for Crocs's legal compliance, including compliance with antitrust, competition, intellectually [sic] property (including patent) and securities laws and regulations; and the manner and extent to which each individual participated or was responsible; Dawgs has not articulated any theory of relevance for this topic. There is no securities fraud counterclaim or a specific statement in one of the filings that is at issue in this case. Additionally, SEC filings themselves are publicly available. To the extent the topic encompasses legal compliance with respect to the patents-in-suit, it is redundant and calls for privileged information. Again, Topic 1(j) suffers the same malaise of no limitation in time. Dawgs chose not to narrow and define the topic when given the opportunity. For the same reasons set forth with respect to Topic 1(a), and also in addition the lack of obvious relevance to any claim, counterclaim or defense which is the subject matter of this case, Plaintiff's objections are sustained and the motion is denied with respect to Topic No. 1(j). Plaintiff need not produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on this topic. k. the identities, functions, responsibilities, reporting hierarchy, employment history and terms, current relationship with Crocs and last known address of Crocs's employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives or independent contractors (including in-house and outside legal counsel) who participate(d) in or are/were responsible in any way for Crocs's Securities and Exchange Commission reporting and filings (including the drafting, preparation, revision, approval, accuracy and completeness of the SEC filings); and the manner and extent to which each individual participated or was responsible For the same reasons set forth with respect to Topic 1(j), Plaintiff's objections are sustained and the motion is denied with respect to Topic No. 1(k). Plaintiff need not produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on this topic. p. the identities, functions, responsibilities, reporting hierarchy, employment history and terms, current relationship with Crocs and last known address of Crocs's employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives or independent contractors (including in-house and outside legal counsel) who participate(d) in or are/were responsible in any way for Crocs's payments, transfers or licenses to or from, or Crocs's relationship, communications, dealings, negotiations, contracts, arrangements or disputes (or the settlements of any disputes) with individuals or entities that Crocs has ever alleged or accused of infringing its intellectual property rights (including the Patents In Suit), including without limitation, Effervescent, Inc., Australia Unlimited Inc., Holey Soles, Inc., any other defendants ever named in this Action, Skechers U.S.A, Inc., The Children's Place, Inc., ToysRUs, Inc., or CVS Caremark Corporation and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (or any principals, owners, officers, directors, employees, or representatives of those entities); and the manner and extent to which each individual participated or was responsible; *6 This topic apparently seeks information about Crocs's most minute dealings or communications with other entities or individuals on both the patents-in-suit and any and all other intellectual property of any type or kind. It seeks information about individuals who had anything to do with “payments, transfers or licenses to or from, or Crocs's relationship, communications, dealings, negotiations, contracts, arrangements or disputes (or the settlements of any disputes) with individuals or entities” that Crocs has ever alleged or accused, not limited to litigation or formal accusation, of infringing its intellectual property rights. (Emphasis added) This topic essentially seeks information about every aspect of every communication Crocs's has ever had with any entity or individual on any topic if Crocs ever in any way alleged that entity or person infringed on Crocs's intellectual property of any kind. Dawgs wants all this from a Rule 30(b)(6) witness with no limitation of time period. This topic is almost ludicrously overbroad and, frankly, does not deserve the court's thoughtful analysis to properly parse the components as Dawgs refused the request to clarify. This court finds that, as written, preparing a witness to fully respond to the topic would be utterly impossible. The Plaintiff's objections are sustained and the motion is denied with respect to Topic No. 1(p). Plaintiff need not produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on this topic. q. the identities, functions, responsibilities, reporting hierarchy, employment history and terms, current relationship with Crocs and last known address of Crocs's employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives or independent contractors (including in-house and outside legal counsel) who participate(d) in or are/were responsible in any way for Crocs's payments, transfers or licenses to or from, or Crocs's relationship, communications, dealings, negotiations, contracts, arrangements or disputes (or the settlements of any disputes) with individuals or entities that Crocs has accused of infringing its patents, including without limitation, Effervescent, Inc., Holey Soles, Inc., The Childrens Place, Inc. ToysRUs (or any principals or owners of those alleged infringers); For the same reasons set forth with respect to Topic 1(p), Plaintiff's objections are sustained and the motion is denied with respect to Topic No. 1(q). Plaintiff need not produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on this topic. r. the stock options, grants, warrants and any form of benefits, compensation, honorarium or consideration, given, provided or paid to i. Crocs's officers and directors; ii. Scott Seamans, Ronald Snyder, Daniel Hart, Thomas J. Smach, Andrew Rees, Gregg Ribatt, Andrew Reddyhoff, George B. Boedecker Jr., Lyndon “Duke” Hanson, Donald Lococo, Raymond Croghan, Ronald Frasch, Michael Margolis, Jeffrey Lasher, Michael E. Marks, Prakash Melwani, John P. McCarvel, Erik Rebich and Sara Hoverstock; iii. individuals who fit within the various categories of John Doe Defendants as described in Dawgs' First Amended Answer and Counterclaims in this Action or described as Conspirator Defendants in the related action (U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc. v. Ronald Snyder, et al., Colorado District Court civil action number 16–CV–2005) (the “Related Action”); iv. individuals who actively directed, supervised, participated in, cooperated with, authorized, sanctioned and/or acquiesced in the conduct alleged and described in Dawgs' First Amended Answer and Counterclaims in this Action or in Dawgs' Complaint in the Related Action (including without limitation the preparation, filing, prosecution and enforcement of the Patents In Suit and the decision(s) to commence and continue the instant Action against Dawgs and the authorization of the budget(s) for the enforcement of the Patents In Issue and the prosecution and defense of this Action and Dawgs' Counterclaims). *7 Topic 1(r) seeks information about various forms of compensation to certain Crocs employees, officers, and directors. Crocs objects to the relevancy of any of this information and cites to privacy concerns as well. (Reply, Ex. 1). Dawgs claims that the estimated $500 million total compensation paid to employees over an unspecified time period provides a significant incentive for these employees to institute sham litigation, mislead the patent office, and engage in widespread antitrust violations. The court disagrees that payments of salary and other earned compensation to employees necessarily demonstrates any such thing. Therefore the topic is irrelevant. Further, subtopics 1(r)(ii)–(iii) identify individuals who have been named in Case No. 16–cv–2004, and it is inappropriate to attempt to take discovery about them here. Subsection (iv.) has been addressed by the court previously and is therefore redundant. Plaintiff's objections to Topic 1(r) are sustained and Crocs will not be required to produce a witness on this topic s. The existence and terms of any joint defense, cooperation or indemnification/contribution agreements between Crocs and any individual or entity, including Crocs's current and former directors alleged to be conspirators and defendants in this Action or the Related Action (including the existence and terms of any insurance policies that would or could provide such individuals with defense or indemnity against the counterclaims alleged in this Action or the Related Action). The sole and only mention of this topic, other than the mere demand that Crocs provide a witness to address it, was made in the Reply and stated, “Crocs asked for clarification of a term in Topic 1(s), which Dawgs provided.” (Reply at 3.) There is no argument by Dawgs concerning the topic itself and why it is relevant or how it was not responded to by Crocs. Likewise, Crocs does not argue that it responded to the topic or that any attempt was made to question a witness about the topic. On its face the topic is overbroad because it calls for any insurance or any indemnification or joint defense type agreement of any kind at any point in time regarding any matter. Had the topic been modified to seek information only concerning such agreements or insurance policies in the “including” categories in the topic, such a topic might have been allowable. However, Dawgs refused to narrow its topic to relevant information rendering the topic overbroad. Plaintiff's objections to Topic 1(s) are sustained and Crocs will not be required to produce a witness on this topic. Topic 6. Crocs's policy(ies) and practices concerning retention, storage, or destruction of any documents, information and things, including without limitation: a. the creation, issuance, implementation or enforcement of any litigation hold(s) (including or any supplemental litigation holds or suspension of document destruction guidelines) regarding documents, information, and things potentially relevant to this Action, and Crocs Information Systems (hereinafter, the “Litigation Holds”); b. the identities, functions, responsibilities, and reporting hierarchy of(i) the person(s) responsible for the creation, issuance, implementation and enforcement of the Litigation Holds (ii) all individuals that were or are subject to the Litigation Holds, and (iii) all individuals who received notice of the Litigation Holds; c. the identities of all files and Crocs Information Systems that were or are subject to the Litigation Holds; d. All requests, instructions, orders, and/or directives sent out to Crocs employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives or independent contractors (including in-house and outside legal counsel) to retain paper and electronic documents, information and things potentially relevant to this litigation or regarding a Litigation Hold, including, but not limited to: *8 i. the content of such request, instruction, order or directive; ii. the date(s) of such request, instruction, order or directive; iii. the identity and title of the individuals to whom such request, instruction, order or directive was sent; iv. the person(s) responsible for sending and enforcing compliance with any such request, instruction, order or directive; v. all steps that Crocs undertook to identify and preserve documents, information or things consistent with any such request, instruction, order, or directive; and vi. any instances of noncompliance with any such request, instruction, order or directive. The term “potentially relevant” used to describe a general collection of responsive actions gathered into a catchall phase “litigation holds” renders all the requests in Topic No. 6 both overbroad and unintelligible. The court finds that Plaintiff would be unable to sufficiently educate a Rule 30(b)(6) on such a topic and that the topic is both irrelevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and not “proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b). See also, e.g., ChriMar Systems v. Cisco Systems, 312 F.R.D. at 564. Plaintiff's objections to Topic 6 are sustained and Crocs will not be required to produce a witness on this topic. Topic 7. The search for, preservation of and production of electronic and hard copy documents information and things potentially relevant to this Action and/or responsive to Dawgs' requests for production of documents, information and things (and the identity and scope of participation of the individuals who participated in the determination of which files and custodians to be searched and the actual search for documents, information and things). This request seeks classic “discovery about discovery.” In some circumstances, it is appropriate to allow discovery about a party's efforts to locate and produce discovery, electronic or otherwise. Conagra Foods Food Ingredients Col, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Case No. 12–2171–EFM, 2014 WL 1570263, at *6 (D. Kan. 2014). In general, such discovery will be allowed if a party's efforts to comply with proper discovery requests are reasonably drawn into question. See Ruiz–Bueno v. Scott, Case No. 12–cv–0809, 2013 WL 6055402, at *2. (S.D. Ohio 2013). Dawgs states that the reason it needs to question a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on this topic is because Crocs refuses to produce complete discovery responses or to certify the thoroughness of its search for responsive material, as Dawgs has done. (Reply at 4, citing Rule 26(b)(1). Dawgs asserts that its need to file many motions to compel demonstrate Crocs's lack of reasonable compliance. The court agrees that discovery in this case appears to be moving at glacial speed and that Dawgs motions demonstrate that a high frustration level with the discovery being produced by Crocs. Obviously, however, the court does not agree, as evidenced by this order, that Crocs is being unreasonable in not responding to discovery requests which are couched in overbroad terms or unintelligible language. *9 Nevertheless, the case would benefit by some guidance from Crocs as to its efforts to fully respond to discovery requests. This court agrees that the topic is relevant given the discovery process thus far. Therefore, the Plaintiff's objections to providing a witness to address Topic 7 are overruled and Crocs shall produce a witness to address the topic. The deposition will be undertaken in Denver, Colorado, and can be conducted by video or other remote means if the parties so choose. The deposition shall last no more than one hour on this topic. 11. The identity of Crocs's employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives or independent contractors (including in-house and outside legal counsel) who participated in the determination and designation of representatives in response to this deposition notice. 12. The identity of Crocs's employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives or independent contractors (including in-house and outside legal counsel) who participated in the preparation of any witness designated to testify concerning the topics herein, including the amount of time spent by each such individual with respect to each such noticed topic, and the activities undertaken by each identified individual to prepare. 13. The reasons for the unavailability, if any, of the representatives designated by Crocs pursuant to this deposition on any dates between the date of this notice and the date(s) on which the noticed deposition(s) takes place or October 6, 2016, whichever date is later. The three topics are clearly an attempt to obtain otherwise protected work product and/or attorney client privileged material and are not relevant to the issues in the case. Plaintiff's objections to Topics 11, 12 and 13 are sustained and Crocs will not be required to produce a witness on these topic. Therefore, it is ORDERED “Counterclaim Plaintiffs (Dawgs) Motion to Compel Counterclaim Defendant Crocs to Produce Rule 30(b)(6) Witness(es)” [Doc. No. 327] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above. Footnotes [1] Counterclaim Plaintiffs refer to themselves as “Dawgs” both collectively and singly. (Mot. at 1 n. 1.) The court will adopt the same convention. [2] The Topics set forth in this Order are taken verbatim from “Dawgs' First Notice of Deposition of Crocs, Inc. Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) (Corporate Organization, Personnel and Documents)” [Doc. No. 327–1] (“Notice”) attached to the Mot. to Compel as Ex. 1.