BAT LLC, Plaintiff, v. TD BANK, N.A. et al., Defendants 15 CV 5839 (RRM) (CLP) United States District Court, E.D. New York Signed February 20, 2020 Counsel Robert L. Rimberg, Goldberg & Rimberg PLLC, New York, NY, Joseph Zelmanovitz, Stahl & Zelmanovitz, New York, NY, Kelly Christine Griffin-Fromm, Goldberg Weg & Markus PLLC, New York, NY, Elliot Hahn, Hahn Eisenberger PLLC, Brooklyn, NY, Seth Eisenberger, Law Office of Seth Eisenberger, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff. Andrew Hamelsky, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, New York, NY, Jenifer Ann Scarcella, White & Williams LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant TD Bank N.A. Huaou Yan, Philadelphia, PA, Michael David Silberfarb, Blank Rome, New York, NY, for Defendant Halifax Security, Inc. Patrick Stoltz, Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Valhalla, NY, for Defendant Securecom Wireless LLC. Katie Anne Mabanta, Deborah A. Del Sordo, Ahmuty, Demers & McManus Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant Lydia Security Monitoring Inc. James D. Gassenheimer, Pro Hac Vice, Berger Singerman LLP, Miami, FL, Michel O. Weisz, Pro Hac Vice, Michel O. Weisz, P.A., Doral, FL, Deborah A. Del Sordo, Ahmuty, Demers & McManus Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant Integrated Security Systems. Pollak, Cheryl L., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Plaintiff BAT LLC (“BAT”) commenced this action on August 3, 2015 against defendant TD Bank, N.A. (“TD Bank”),[1] alleging breach of contract, gross negligence, and a violation of New York Banking Law § 338, stemming from the August 6, 2012 theft of items from a safe deposit box located at the TD Bank at 1602 Avenue U in Brooklyn (the “Avenue U branch”). (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 21-55).[2] Discovery in this matter has been long and protracted, with plaintiff serving approximately 155 document requests, 46 interrogatories, and 512 requests for admission; eight (8) TD Bank witnesses have been deposed. During the course of the litigation, this Court has been required to intervene and rule on approximately nineteen discovery disputes to date, a number of which have been appealed to the district judge. Most recently, on September 23, 2019, this Court issued a detailed 18-page Order granting in part TD Bank's motion for a protective order and directing plaintiff to review the Rule 30(b)(6) notice served on the Bank, which listed 89 different topics.[3] Despite clear instructions from the Court, and countless admonitions to meet and confer in an effort to resolve matters, the Court is faced again with three new discovery disputes: 1) TD Bank's December 20, 2019 letter motion seeking a protective order and sanctions based on plaintiff's Amended 30(b)(6) Notice; 2) plaintiff's January 14, 2020 letter motion to compel TD Bank to provide certain information and documents; and 3) plaintiff's January 16, 2020 letter motion seeking an Order compelling the deposition of nonparty witness John Sakevich. Each motion is addressed below. A. TD Bank's Motion for Protective Order Related to the Amended 30(b)(6) Notice 1) The Court's Prior Order Over a year ago, plaintiff served a Rule 30(b)(6) notice on the Bank, seeking to have the Bank produce a witness or witnesses who could testify about a list of 89 different topics, including general subjects relating to the burglary and the Bank's alarm and security system, the Bank's Affirmative Defenses and discovery responses, and some topics which sought legal opinions and conclusions of law. (Not. Topics ¶¶ 1, 2, 26, 63).[4] The Bank sought a protective order, arguing that plaintiff had already deposed the Bank representatives with the most knowledge about the burglary, the alarm system, the investigations, and TD Bank's relationship with the third-party vendors and alarm monitoring companies, contending that the vast majority of topics listed in the Notice had been covered, and asserting that there was no other witness to provide. (Def.’s Mot. Prot. at 1). *2 BAT argued that while the Bank has produced employees and former employees as witnesses for deposition, some of the witnesses lacked knowledge or contradicted the testimony of other witnesses and thus, plaintiff argued that under Rule 30(b)(6), the Bank was required to educate a witness on each of these topics whose testimony would then be binding on the Bank. (Pl.’s Feb. 7 Ltr. at 1).[5] After reviewing the parties’ submissions, this Court issued an Order, striking numerous topics as outside the scope of the Bank's knowledge and a number of other proposed topics which the Court found to be overly broad and improper. (See 9/23/19 Order at 8 et seq. (citing Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Lenex Servs., No. 16 CV 6030, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43584, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2018) (holding that Rule 30(b)(6) depositions are intended to discover facts; it is improper to use the 30(b)(6) deposition to ascertain how a party intends to marshal the facts and support its legal theories) (internal citations omitted))). With respect to the other topics that the Bank asserted had been previously addressed in prior depositions, such as the burglary, the alarm and security systems, communications with vendors, the safety deposit boxes, and the security officer's report, the Court found that the topics as defined failed to provide sufficient detail as to the information plaintiff believed had not been adequately covered in prior depositions. The Court noted: Instead, plaintiff has listed virtually every possible subject that could be raised in this litigation, and described them in such broad terms that it is impossible to know how defendant would prepare a 30(b)(6) witness to answer questions beyond those already answered by the heads of the departments with presumably the most knowledge in the organization.... The vague and generalized requests give no indication as to what areas plaintiffs believe were not adequately covered by the prior depositions, nor are they sufficiently limited to allow defendant an opportunity to prepare a witness should one be ordered. (9/23/19 Order at 10). The Court further found that, in many instances, plaintiff had failed to provide any time limit, location or scope for these broad topics. (Id. at 11). Although plaintiff claimed that there were specific questions that had not been answered by any of the witnesses, the vast majority of topics listed in the initial notice had been explored with at least one and sometimes multiple witnesses. Indeed, defendant explained that while it was willing to produce another witness, that witness would inevitably have to consult with and be educated by the heads of the departments who had already been deposed in order to familiarize himself with the topics listed. (Id. at 11). Given the overly broad and vague nature of the topics listed in plaintiff's Notice, it was unclear what information the witness would be seeking in order to prepare for the deposition. Moreover, the Order noted that there may be no other witnesses with more information than those who had already testified. (Id. at 3, n. 5). See Ecomm'n Sols., LLC v. CTS Holdings, Inc., No. 15 CV 2671, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74325 at *17-18 (holding that “when a corporate representative testifies to a lack of non-privileged information (or a lack of non-privileged facts), he is testifying that the company itself does not possess non-privileged information (or non-privileged facts”). Indeed, in a letter dated September 9, 2019, TD confirmed that there were no other witnesses and “represent[ed] that at trial TD Bank will not produce any other corporate witness other than those who have already been deposed.” (Def.’s Sept. 9 Ltr. at l).[6] However, the Bank declined to designate a witness whose testimony would be binding on the corporation and thus, the Court Ordered the Bank to designate a 30(b)(6) witness once plaintiff revised its Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to provide “a sufficiently detailed revised list of no more than 20 topics.” (9/23/19 Order at 14). 2) TD Bank's December Motion *3 In its letter motion dated December 20, 2019, the Bank contends that plaintiff's Amended Notice violates this Court's earlier Order in that it continues to contain vague, undefined topics that have been previously addressed in numerous prior depositions, making it impossible for the Bank to prepare a witness to testify. TD Bank objects to Amended Topic No. 1 as seeking legal interpretations and conclusions relating to the Bank's reporting requirements. (Def.’s 12/20/19 Ltr.[7] at 9). The Topic as amended reads: “TD's retention and maintenance of all documents concerning the Incident/Burglary pursuant to statutory or regulatory law, regulation or rule.” (Am. Not.[8] Topic 1). Plaintiff, in its response, contends that the topic does not seek legal opinions or conclusions but does not further specify what type of information it seeks. (Pl.’s 1/3/2020 Ltr.[9] at 3.) Nor has plaintiff specified a time period to be covered by this topic, despite the Court's prior Order. Again, the Topic is so vaguely worded that it is unclear how the Bank is to prepare a witness. If what plaintiff is seeking is the testimony of a records custodian to explore what records the Bank has retained, then the request is proper; however, questions of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness as to whether the Bank was required by law to retain a specific document or not would not be sustained. Defendant also objects to a number of the topics as examples in which the plaintiff listed virtually the same topics in its earlier Notice. (Def.’s 12/20/19 Ltr. at 4-5). For example, in the earlier Notice, plaintiff asked for: “Information concerning security cameras at the Avenue U Branch and footage from such equipment.” (Topic No. 7). Although the Court found this topic in the original Notice to be unduly vague, the revised topic simply seeks: “Security cameras at the Avenue U Branch and the coverage area of such cameras.” (Am. Topic No. 4). In explaining why this topic as now detailed is different and relevant, plaintiff contends that the Bank had the capability of viewing surveillance footage in real time and thus the areas a person could have viewed is a relevant topic. (Pl.’s 1/3/2020 Ltr. at 2). Plaintiff claims that because the footage could be viewed in real time, the Bank's instruction to its monitoring companies to ignore improper communications between the Bank's alarm panels constitutes negligence. (Id.) The Bank contends that because the burglars entered the Bank vault through the roof, the only camera relevant to the incident is the one in the vault itself. Since the burglars never entered any other area of the Bank, the location, coverage and footage of other cameras is irrelevant because the burglars were not captured on any of these cameras. (Def.’s 12/20/19 Ltr. at 8). Apart from the dubious relevance of the coverage issue, there has been no claim that the topic of coverage could not have been explored with the numerous other witnesses who testified about the security cameras in the Bank. Moreover, given that the only change to the topic is the addition of the coverage issue, the Court finds that the topic is still overly broad and vague. *4 Amended Topic No. 5 is similarly vague and nearly identical to the original Topic No. 2 in that it seeks “Information concerning TD's efforts to secure area(s) at which the Security System and Alarm System of the Avenue U Branch were located.” (Am. Topic No. 2). The Bank notes that because the wires were cut in the basement of the building which was rented and not part of TD Bank's property, and numerous witnesses, including the landlord, have been questioned about this, it is unclear what the plaintiff is seeking to explore with a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. (Def.’s 1/8/2020 Ltr.[10] at 5). Related to this topic is Amended Topic No. 18, which states: “Security systems or locks in the basement of the building in which the Avenue Branch is located and of the Wires.” (Am. Topic No. 18). Apart from the fact that the language “of the Wires” is utterly vague and could be interpreted in a variety of ways, the Bank explains that because the Bank has already provided all witnesses with knowledge to testify concerning the systems and locks in the basement, it is again unclear what information the plaintiff is seeking. (Def.’s 1/8/2020 Ltr. at 11). The Bank argues that it “cannot provide binding testimony on a topic outside of TD Bank's custody or control.” (Id.) This Court's prior Order specifically noted that a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is not to be used to re-ask all of the questions a party has previously explored with multiple witnesses. (Id. at 11) (citing Bellinger v. Astrue, No. 06 CV 321, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110953, at *17 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2011) (holding that the 30(b)(6) topics were unreasonably cumulative where plaintiff had already deposed individuals familiar with and involved in the events giving rise to the claim)). Again, because the plaintiff's topic description is unclear and does not even begin to describe what it is seeking to elicit from a 30(b)(6) witness, the Topic is still overly vague. Another example is Topic No. 6: the initial Notice asked for “Information concerning the testing of the alarm system at the Avenue U Branch.” (Def.’s 12/20/19 Ltr. at 4 (Topic No. 11)). The Amended Notice is virtually identical: “The testing of the Security System and Alarm System at the Avenue U Branch.” (Am. Topic No. 6). This topic is just as overbroad and vague as it was in the first Notice. The Court's Order directed plaintiff to provide more specifics as to what it was looking for in terms of “testing,” along with limitations on time and scope. (9/23/19 Order at 10-11). Instead of stating, for example, that plaintiff was seeking information as to whether and how frequently testing of the security and alarm systems were done during a specific time period, who conducted the testing, how testing was conducted, etc., plaintiff simply repeats the vague description and does not address the issue in its letter, simply stating that certain witnesses did not know about testing. (Pl.’s 1/3/2020 Ltr. at 5). Other topics have become less detailed and even more vague than in the original Notice. In the initial Notice, Topic No. 6, plaintiff requested “Information concerning strategic decisionmaking at TD Bank to address the issue of communication outages at TD Bank branches, and related proposed and/or implemented solutions to those issues.” (Topic No. 6). Amended Topic No. 3 is less detailed and, despite the Court's prior Order, contains no limitation as to time: “The issue of communication outages at TD Bank branches, and proposed and/or implemented solutions to those issues.” (Am. Topic 3). In an Order dated January 15, 2019, this Court found that requests for documents relating to all TD Bank branch locations was overly broad and that only documents relating to the Avenue U Branch were relevant and need be disclosed. (1/15/2019 Order[11] at 2-3; see also 7/30/18 Order at 7). Plaintiff's effort to circumvent this Court's two prior rulings on the scope of discovery by seeking now to depose a 30(b)(6) witness on outages at all of the Bank branches, with no time period specified, is contrary to this Court's prior rulings. *5 Similarly, Amended Topic No. 8 – “Instructions given or not given by TD Bank to any of its contractors concerning responses to alarm signals” – is an example of where the revised request, relating to instructions to TD Bank's third-party monitoring companies, has now become less detailed and is no longer limited in time and scope as was the earlier Topic 18.[12] (Def.’s 12/20/19 Ltr. at 9). TD Bank complains that it cannot adequately prepare a witness to answer questions about “instructions.” (Id.) Amended Topic No. 7 asks for the “proposed and actual installation or removal of wireless communication alarm equipment ... and the costs thereof....” (Am. Topic No. 7). Similarly, Amended Topic No. 12 seeks testimony about communications between the Bank and various contractors about the installation of a wireless system. (Am. Topic No. 12). The Bank concedes that there was no wireless backup at the time of the incident and the topic has been explored at various Bank depositions. (Def.’s 1/8/2020 Ltr. at 6). Plaintiff argues that the Bank's failure to maintain a wireless backup is a key issue in the case. (Pl.’s 1/3/2020 Ltr. at 5). Given the Bank's concession that there is no dispute that there was no wireless backup in operation at the time, it is unclear what further information the plaintiff is seeking. Plaintiff has all it needs to argue negligence on the part of the Bank insofar as the lack of a wireless system is concerned, and in the absence of further specificity, which plaintiff was ordered to provide, but has not done, these topics are not proper. Amended Topic No. 9 was withdrawn by plaintiff. (Def.’s 1/8/2020 Ltr. at 7). Amended Topic No. 10 seeks testimony about the “UL” rating of the Bank vault. (Am. Topic No. 10). The “UL” rating is a reference to the time it takes to breach a vault or safe deposit boxes. (Id.) Defendant contends that plaintiff never questioned any of the eight Bank witnesses about this during deposition. (Id.) The Bank contends that this is an abuse of Rule 30(b)(6) in that it is an attempt to ask questions which plaintiff failed to ask before and, apart from that, is wholly irrelevant. (Id.) Moreover, the Bank claims that the UL rating is not issued by the Bank and is beyond the scope of knowledge of a corporate witness from the Bank; it is a question more properly posed to the manufacturer of the vault which would have applied for the rating and been involved in the UL laboratory testing. (Id.) Rather than require the Bank to produce a witness, the Court Orders the Bank to provide a certification that it was unaware of what the rating was, or if it did know, state what the rating was. Amended Topic No. 13 seeks: “The disposal and/or destruction of any alarm equipment or video recordings of the Avenue U Branch after the Incident/Burglary, including the location of any such removed devices if still in existence.” (Am. Topic No. 13). Defendant notes that because the burglars entered through the vault and there is only one camera in the vault, all the video footage has been provided and numerous witnesses have testified as to the location or lack of other cameras. (Def.’s 12/20/19 Ltr. at 8). As for the request for “removed devices,” the Bank notes that the burglars cut the wires, but no request was ever made to preserve the wires which are not relevant to the issues in the case. (Id. at 11). Plaintiff disputes the Bank's assertions, claiming that the Bank has “affirmatively stated that it did not retain the Alarm Panel ... [and] it did not retain the safe deposit boxes damaged during the Burglary.” (Pl.’s 1/3/2020 Ltr. at 6). Plaintiff also disputes the Bank's assertion that the only areas of the Bank accessed by the burglars was the vault space, contending that there is “uncontroverted” evidence that they accessed the basement. (Id. at 7, n. 3). Since TD Bank has “admitted” that the security system “erased” the footage from all the areas other than the vault, plaintiff argues that this “goes to the issue of whether a person responding to a proper alarm signal would have discovered the 9-hour Burglary while it was in progress and prevented the theft of plaintiff's assets.” (Id. at 7). *6 Again, due to the vague nature of the request, it is unclear what information plaintiff is looking to have a 30(b)(6) witness testify to. Given plaintiff's own representations, the Bank has already “admitted” that footage from other cameras was erased: “affirmatively stated” that it did not retain certain items that plaintiff now claims are relevant to support its arguments; and that it is “uncontroverted” that the burglars accessed the basement. (Id.) The Bank contends that neither plaintiff nor the holders of the box, the Bienenstocks, ever contacted the Bank to request that the items that are the subject of this request be maintained. (Def.’s 1/8/2020 Ltr. at 9). Instead, the Bank contends that plaintiff waited unnecessarily to file the lawsuit. (Id.) Moreover, as the Bank notes, because it was a crime, the NYPD took all of the relevant evidence which remains in their custody, and, in any event, plaintiff has failed to explain the relevance of the cut wires and damaged boxes. (Id.) Amended Topic No. 14 seeks: “Any report mandated by any statutory or regulatory law, rule or regulation concerning the Alarm System, Security System ... (“Security Officer's Reports”), and all minutes of the Board of Directors ... relating thereto.” (Am. Topic No. 14). Not only has the Bank represented that no such report exists, but the issue of the Board minutes and information relating to other branches has been addressed previously in prior Orders of this Court.[13] Rather than clarify what plaintiff is seeking beyond that which has already been ruled irrelevant by this Court, plaintiff continues to seek the same information and has failed to comply with the Court's Order to specify time periods. Amended Topic No. 17 seeks: “The manner by which unidentified perpetrators bypassed the Alarm System and Security System at the Avenue U Branch during the Incident/Burglary.” (Am. Topic No. 17). Defendant notes that this is a matter for the NYPD, which is continuing to investigate the burglary. (Def.’s 12/10/19 Ltr.[14] at 13). To the extent that the Bank's officials have relevant knowledge, those individuals, including the Store Manager, the former Head of Global Security, the Senior Investigator, the Manager of Global Physical Security, the Vice President and Regional Investigations Manager for the Metro New York area, the Head of Investigations, and the Lead Facilities Manager, have already been deposed. (Def.’s 1/8/2020 Ltr. at 10). Plaintiff suggests that TD Bank “would be in touch with law enforcement officials so that it could learn precisely how the Burglary occurred....” (Pl.’s 1/3/2020 Ltr. at 9). Thus, it appears that what plaintiff is seeking is hearsay information from the NYPD. Defendant has stated that at this time, it has presented numerous witnesses, all of whom have testified to the extent of their knowledge. The Court directs defendant to confirm that there are no other TD Bank witnesses with knowledge as to this issue. Amended Topic 19 relating to alarm systems in other branches has already been ruled on by this Court as irrelevant. Amended Topic 2 seeks testimony regarding changes and upgrades to the Security System and Alarm System between 2007 and 2017 and changes in response protocols. (Am. Topic No. 2). Amended Topic No. 15 seeks testimony about “All security systems and equipment in place at the Avenue U Branch on the date of the Incident/Burglary, including but not limited to: a DMP alarm intrusion alarm [sic] panel, a Bosch intrusion alarm system, a Potter Vault Sound Alarm, perimeter alarm; vault door contact; vault door vibration protection; vault door thermal protection; door locks; surveillance cameras; and panic buttons, and the testing and monitoring of such equipment.” (Am. Topic No. 15). The Bank asserts that it has already produced numerous witnesses to testify about the security systems. (Def.’s 1/8/2020 Ltr. at 3, 10). Plaintiff, however, points out that the Bank in its interrogatory responses misidentified the alarm panel at the time of the burglary and the company that installed it, and documentary evidence presented by the Bank raise further discrepancies as to the time of the installation and the company responsible for the installation. (Pl.’s 1/3/2020 Ltr. at 4, 8-9). Similarly, plaintiff claims that the Bank's witnesses provided contradictory information as to the changes in protocols. The Court finds these to be appropriate topic for a Rule 30(b)(6) witness in light of the Bank's refusal to be bound by the testimony of only one witness. The Bank's position on these matters needs to be clarified. *7 Amended Topic 11 seeks testimony about the “Bank's policies concerning the rental of safe deposit boxes to customers.” (Am. Topic No. 11). Amended Topic No. 16 seeks testimony regarding the contract executed by the Bienenstocks for the rental of the subject box. (Am. Topic No. 16). The Bank objects on the grounds that these Topics are aimed at the Bank's Affirmative Defenses and therefore outside the scope of the Court's prior Order. (Def.’s 1/8/2020 Ltr. at 8). Plaintiff claims that the only Bank witness presented to testify about these policies was the branch manager who testified that the policies “ ‘should be’ ” in the Bank's brochures, but he “ ‘was not clear on that.’ ” (Pl.’s 1/3/2020 Ltr. at 6). Contrary to defendant's argument, this issue is not an improper attempt to explore the Bank's Affirmative Defenses, but seeks the policies of the Bank relating to the rental of safe deposit boxes. While the Topic is still vague and plaintiff has failed to identify a time frame – despite being ordered to do so – the Court directs the Bank to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness who can testify about the Bank's policies with respect to the rental of safe deposit boxes that were in effect at the time the box at issue was rented. Similarly, the Bank is required to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify about the actual contract in light of the differing versions of the document and provide the Bank's position as to issues relating to the contract. Amended Topic 20 asks for a 30(b)(6) witness to testify about the Bank's “policy” in 2012 of the “persons or companies that were to be notified in the event of notice of unusual activity, alarm or break-in at the Avenue U Branch.” (Am. Topic No. 20). Defendant objects on the grounds that this seems to be requesting information as to how the Bank intends to martial the evidence. (Def.’s 1/8/2020 Ltr. at 11). The Court disagrees and reads the topic as simply asking for a witness to testify as to the Bank's policy at that time. Even though the Bank may have provided witnesses who already testified about this issue, the Bank has declined to be bound by their testimony. Thus, this Topic is proper. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, TD Bank shall designate and produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify as to Amended Topics 2, 11, 15, 16, and 20. With respect to Amended Topic No. 1, if plaintiff is seeking the testimony of a records custodian as to the Bank's general document retention policy and to verify that all relevant documents responsive to the request have been provided, then the Bank shall produce a records custodian. However, questions exploring the regulations and rules regarding what documents the Bank was required to maintain by law raise legal issues to be determined by the Court that are beyond the scope of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. As to Amended Topic No. 10, the Bank is to provide a certification as to the UL rating and whether the Bank was aware of it or not. As to Amended Topic No. 17, the Bank is directed to certify that there are no additional witnesses with knowledge as to this topic. Given the plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's prior Order directing the plaintiff to define the topics with more specificity and the continued vagueness of most of them, the Court grants in part defendant's motion for a protective order as to Amended Topics Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 18, and 19. Pursuant to the additional instructions regarding certifications given above, the Court denies in part defendant's motion for a protective order as to Amended Topics Nos. 1,2, 10, 11,15, 16, 17, and 20. B. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Deposition of John Sakevich In a letter dated January 16, 2020, the plaintiff seeks an Order compelling the deposition of non-party witness John Sakevich. (Pl.’s 1/16/2020 Ltr.[15] at 1). Mr. Sakevich is an alarm technician formerly employed by Corporate Security Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Nexus Technologies, and by defendant Halifax Security Inc., d/b/a North American Video, who serviced the alarm panel at the Avenue U branch less than a month before the burglary and then on the day after. (Id.) According to plaintiff, Mr. Sakevich was served with a subpoena on September 12, 2019 for a deposition for October 7, 2019. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff withdrew the subpoena after Mr. Sakevich agreed to provide a Declaration, which he did on October 11, 2019. (Id. at 2, Ex. 3[16]). When TD Bank refused to stipulate to the facts contained in the Sakevich Declaration, plaintiff renewed its efforts to take Mr. Sakevich's deposition. (Id. at 2). According to plaintiff, it served the witness with a new subpoena on November 27, 2019 for his deposition on December 19, 2019. (Id.) Mr. Sakevich failed to appear. (Id.) Accordingly, plaintiff seeks an Order, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, compelling the witness's compliance with the Subpoena. *8 Defendant opposes Mr. Sakevich's deposition on the grounds that it is both unnecessary and would improperly extend “endless discovery in this case.” (Def.’s 1/21/2020 Ltr.[17] at 1, 2). Defendant also avers that plaintiff has needlessly delayed seeking the motion to compel Sakevich's deposition for a month, as Mr. Sakevich failed to appear on December 19, 2019 but plaintiff did not file its motion until January 16, 2020. (Id. at 2). In reply, plaintiff explains that it had been waiting to move to compel until it received the transcript of the deposition for which Sakevich failed to appear, which was received shortly before filing the motion. (Pl.’s. 1/24/2020 Ltr.[18]) Based on plaintiff's letter application, the Court will issue a separate Order requiring the witness to appear for a new deposition. Accordingly, the Court will extend the discovery deadline to March 31, 2020. No further extensions will be granted. C. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents from TD Bank In a separate letter dated January 14, 2020, plaintiff seeks to compel TD Bank to: 1) identify and produce for deposition the Bank's designated Security Officer during the time of the August 2012 burglary; 2) produce documents and information concerning any Board minutes or reports related to TD's legal obligation under 12 C.F.R. § 21.4; and 3) produce invoices, work orders and other documents reflecting the alarm panel present at the time of the burglary. With respect to the Security Officer, plaintiff complains that the Bank first claimed that John McCluskey was the Security Officer at the time, but McCluskey testified that he first became the designated officer in 2014. (Pl.’s 1/14/2020 Ltr.[19] at 1). Defendant responds that the position was vacant at the time of the burglary. (Def.’s 1/21/2020 Opp.[20] at 1). In reply, plaintiff complains that the Bank should have corrected the record on this point earlier, and requests that the Court order the Bank to submit a certification from a witness with knowledge stating that the Bank had no Security Officer at the time of the Burglary.[21] (Pl.’s 1/24/2020 Reply[22] at 1). The Court Orders the Bank to submit a sworn statement confirming that the position of Security Officer was vacant at the time of the burglary. *9 With respect to the question of the Board minutes, this Court Ordered the Bank to clarify whether there were any other reports prepared as part of the Bank's obligations under the CFR. In a letter dated February 7, 2019, the Bank responded to the Court's Order by stating that “Counsel verifies that this is the only report of which TD Bank is aware at this time.” (Pl.’s 1/14/2020 Ltr. at 3). The Bank explained that the “report” referred to a “briefing note.” (Id.) Since plaintiff claims that two of TD Bank's witnesses could not verify that this was the final version of the document (id., n. 2), plaintiff argues that the Bank should be required to produce “board minutes” and reports prepared in connection with TD Bank's legal requirements. Defendant responds that the Court has already addressed the issue of the Board minutes on multiple occasions, and that granting plaintiff's request would be yet another delay in the closure of fact discovery. (Def.’s 1/21/2020 Opp. at 2). Plaintiff does not contest this in its reply. The Court has addressed the issue of Board minutes at least twice. (See 1/15/2019 Order at 3; 7/30/18 Order at 9), on both occasions holding that the Bank did not have to disclose its Board minutes as plaintiff had not limited their request in time or scope. The Bank is now, however, Ordered to certify that it has no other “reports” other than the briefing note that has been provided. If other reports are later discovered, the Bank will be precluded from offering them as evidence based on their failure to disclose them by now. Finally, with respect to the Alarm Panel, this is the subject of both the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition Notice and the testimony of the non-party witness Sakevich. If, after those witnesses have testified, there remains an issue as to the Alarm Panel, the Bank will be ordered to provide a definitive response. In the interim, the Bank is Ordered to produce any purchase orders, work orders or receipts relating to the installation of the Alarm Panel or certify that no such documents exist. CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, the Court grants in part the Bank's motion for a protective Order, and grants in part plaintiff's motions to compel discovery. The Court Orders the parties to provide status report letters by March 16, 2020. SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] ADT LLC was named as a defendant in the original complaint, but dismissed from the action on December 15, 2015. (See Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Dec. 15, 2015, ECF No. 11). [2] Citations to “Compl.” refer to plaintiff's Complaint, dated August 3, 2015, attached as Exhibit #2 to the Notice of Removal filed by TD Bank, ECF. No. 1. [3] See ECF No. 193. [4] Citations to “Not.” refer to plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to Take Deposition, dated January 11, 2019, attached as Exhibits #1 and #2 to the Motion for Protective Order (“Def.’s Mot. Prot.”), dated January 24, 2019 and filed by TD Bank, ECF. No. 159. [5] Citations to “Pl.’s Feb. 7 Ltr.” refer to plaintiff's Response in Opposition to the defendant's Motion for Protective Order, dated February 7, 2019, filed by BAT LLC, ECF. No. 169. [6] Citations to “Def.’s Sept. 9 Ltr.” refer to defendant's Letter Regarding Trial Witnesses, dated September 9, 2019, filed by TD Bank, ECF. No.185. [7] Citations to “Def.’s 12/20/19 Ltr.” refer to defendant TD Bank's letter motion for protective order and sanctions regarding plaintiff's amended 20(b)(6) notice, dated December 20, 2019, ECF No. 202. [8] Citations to “Am. Not.” refer to BAT's amended 30(b)(6) Notice, dated November 21, 2019, attached as Exhibit 1 to Def.’s December 20, 2019 letter, ECF No. 202-1. [9] Citations to “Pl.’s 1/3/2020 Ltr.” refer to plaintiff's response in opposition to defendant's motion for protective order and sanctions, dated January 3, 2020, ECF No. 204. [10] Citations to “Def.’s 1/8/2020 Ltr.” refer to defendant's reply in support of its letter motion for protective order and sanctions regarding plaintiff's amended 20(b)(6) notice, dated January 8, 2020, ECF No. 205. [11] ECF No. 155. [12] The original Topic 18 read: “Information concerning TD Bank's instructions to third-party monitoring companies for services at the Avenue U Branch, which instructions were in effect from June 1, 2011, through September 1, 2012, including all documents that TD relied on in formulating such instructions.” [13] For some topics in their Amended Notice, plaintiff specifies that it requests information only about the Bank's Avenue U Branch, but not about the Bank in general. (See, e.g., Am. Topic No. 12 (seeking information regarding communications about the installation of a backup system “at the Avenue U Branch”)). The Court understands that, unless specified otherwise, plaintiff seeks information regarding the Bank in general, not only about the Avenue U Branch. Unlike other Amended Topics, Amended Topic No. 14 does not contain any language that would make it clear that the request is limited to information pertaining only to the Avenue U Branch. [14] Citations to “Def.’s 12/10/2019 Ltr.” refer to the December 12, 2019 letter that TD Bank sent plaintiff with its objections to the amended notice, ECF No. 202-2. [15] Citations to “Pl.’s 1/16/2020 Ltr.” refer to plaintiff's letter motion to compel the deposition of non-party witness John Sakevich, dated January 14, 2020, ECF No. 207. [16] Exhibit 3 to plaintiff's 1/16/2020 Letter is a copy of Mr. Sakevich's declaration, dated October 11, 2019, ECF No. 207-3. [17] Citations to “Def.’s 1/21/2020 Ltr.” refer to defendant's response in opposition to plaintiff's motion to compel the deposition of non-party witness John Sakevich, dated January 21, 2020, ECF No. 208. [18] Citations to “Pl.’s. 1/24/2020 Ltr.” refer to plaintiff's reply to defendant's response in opposition to plaintiff's motion to compel the deposition of non-party witness John Sakevich, dated January 24, 2020, ECF No. 210. [19] Citations to “Pl.’s 1/14/2020 Ltr.” refer to plaintiff's letter motion to compel defendant TD Bank, N.A. to produce documents and identify proper security officer, dated January 14, 2020, ECF No. 206. [20] Citations to “Def.’s 1/21/2020 Opp.” refer to defendant's response in opposition re letter motion to compel defendant TD Bank, N.A. to produce documents and identify proper security officer, dated January 24, 2020, ECF No. 209. [21] Plaintiff also seeks reimbursements for “the costs associated with Mr. McCluskey's video conferencing deposition” due to the Bank's delay in confirming that the position was vacant. The Court denies this request, because inter alia, plaintiff has submitted no documentation regarding the costs of this deposition. [22] Citations to “Pl.’s 1/24/2020 Reply” refer to plaintiff's reply in support of the letter motion to compel defendant TD Bank, N.A. to produce documents and identify proper security officer, dated January 24, ECF No. 210.