RAIL SCALE, INC., Plaintiff, v. WINGFIELD SCALE COMPANY, INC., Defendant Case No. 1:21-cv-287-TAV-CHS United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Southern Division, AT CHATTANOOGA Filed March 05, 2025 Counsel Charles W. Gilbreath II, Stephan R. Wright, Wright, Cortesi & Gilbreath, Chattanooga, TN, Ciera Archuleta Kimmerer, Pro Hac Vice, Joseph G. Pia, Zachary James Weyher, Pro Hac Vice, Greggory Allen Teeter, Pro Hac Vice, Pia Hoyt, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff. Eileen H. Rumfelt, Pro Hac Vice, Stephen E. Kabakoff, Pro Hac Vice, Miller & Martin PLLC, Atlanta, GA, Stephen J. Stark, Miller & Martin, PLLC, Chattanooga, TN, for Defendant. Steger, Christopher H., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER I. Introduction *1 This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Rail Scale, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Untimely Subpoena and for Protective Order [Doc. 118]. The Court conducted a hearing on February 18, 2025. For reasons that follow, Plaintiff Rail Scale, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Untimely Subpoena and for Protective Order [Doc. 118] will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. II. Background Defendant Wingfield Scale Company, Inc., served Plaintiff with a notice on February 4, 2025, that it intended to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of non-party Palfinger USA, LLC (“Palfinger”). Plaintiff objected to this deposition on the basis that it was being sought after the close of discovery. [Doc. 118 at 1]. Plaintiff also argued at the hearing that the late deposition of Palfinger would not leave appropriate time for the modification of expert reports given the constraints of the present scheduling order. Defendant claims the deposition is appropriate because it has been trying to schedule this deposition since August 2024 and Rail Scale has not previously objected. [Doc. 121 at 1]. Defendant also argues that the parties did agree to conduct certain discovery following the discovery deadline in this case. III. Analysis The Court possesses the obligation and authority to control the schedule of a case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A) requires the Court to include in a scheduling order a limit on the time to complete discovery. Here, discovery closed on December 11, 2024. [Doc. 105 at 2]. The Court does accept that the parties agreed they would continue engaging in certain discovery following the discovery deadline in this case; however, they did not advise the Court as to precisely what discovery they intended to conduct. The parties now disagree as to whether a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Palfinger was contemplated as part of the post-discovery deadline discovery to be conducted. The Court credits Defendant's representations concerning its good faith efforts to depose Palfinger sooner, and understands that some of the delays encountered were not occasioned by Defendant. However, the Court finds that a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Palfinger at this late date on the subject of a “prior art” defense to Plaintiff's claims—particularly because such testimony and accompanying documents and ESI would likely be significant and voluminous—is being sought too close in time to the remaining case deadlines to make it possible for the Court to maintain the existing Scheduling Order and keep intact the dispositive motion deadline and trial date. Further, any disputes over the conduct of the Palfinger deposition, which would be taken pursuant to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena for a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) “person most knowledgeable” deposition, would likely need to be resolved in a federal district court in the judicial district nearest to the location of Palfinger's out-of-state headquarters. In this situation, Defendant's desire to take additional discovery at this late date must give way to the Court's need to control its docket. *2 Consequently, the Court will quash the subpoena for Palfinger's 30(b)(6) deposition. The Court does not, however, find that a protective order limiting discovery is necessary at this time. To the extent that any further discovery disputes arrive, the parties can simply bring such matters to the Court's attention. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff Rail Scale, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Untimely Subpoena and for Protective Order [Doc. 118] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 2. Defendant's notice of deposition and/or deposition subpoena to non-party Palfinger USA, LLC is QUASHED. 3. Plaintiff's motion for a protective order is DENIED. SO ORDERED.