KATHERINE P. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.
On February 26, 2019, the Court endorsed granted the second motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) (Doc. 60) filed by Globe Specialty Metal, Inc. a/k/a Ferroglobe/Globe Metallurgic, Inc. and Ferroglobe Metallurgic, Inc. (collectively, "Ferroglobe"), with a notation that a written decision was to follow as soon as was practicable. (See Doc. 61).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1), the Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Stephen Smith for February 27, 2019, beginning either at 1:00 p.m. or immediately after another deposition concluded. (See Doc. 60-1). Said notice also requested that Smith produce at the deposition copies of the personnel files of certain employees and former employees of Ferroglobe. Ferroglobe objects to the document production request, as well as any attempt by the Plaintiff to treat Smith as Ferroglobe's Rule 30(b)(6) representative.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), "[i]n [a deposition] notice or subpoena, a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination. The named organization must then designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Ferroglobe represents that the Plaintiff "has not served a 30(b)(6) deposition notice" (Doc. 60), and nothing in the record contradicts that statement. While the Plaintiff claims that Rule 30(b)(6) "is not our situation" and that "[t]here is no need to designate a company representative" (Doc. 58 at 2-3), the notice of deposition expressly references Rule 30(b)(6) in its opening paragraph and demands that Smith produce documents that belong to Ferroglobe. Under the plain terms of Rule 30(b)(6), the ability to designate its testifying representatives rests with Ferroglobe, not with the Plaintiff. Thus, to the extent the Plaintiff's notice attempted to make the designation for Ferroglobe, the Plaintiff's action was improper, and Smith is not to be treated as a Rule 30(b)(6) representative for Ferroglobe at the scheduled deposition.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(2), a "notice to a party deponent may be accompanied by a request under Rule 34 to produce documents and tangible things at the deposition."
For the foregoing reasons, the Court granted Ferroglobe's second motion for a protective order (Doc. 60). (See Doc. 61). Because the motion was granted, "the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees[,]" unless the Court finds "(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3) ("Rule 37(a)(5) applies to the award of expenses" for motions for protective orders). Upon consideration, Ferroglobe must file and serve a motion for such an award, containing any evidence and argument Ferroglobe deems necessary to show both the amount and reasonableness of the expenses requested, and entitlement thereto, no later than