Famuyide v. Chipotle Mexican Grill

CASE: Famuyide v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., and Chipotle Services, LLC, No. 23-cv-01127 (DFW/ECW), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. JUDGE: U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. DATE: March 18, 2026.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Eniola Famuyide filed suit on April 20, 2023, alleging that Defendants Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC hired Lionell Bailey, a registered sex offender, who then sexually harassed and assaulted her at the 'Ear of Corn' Chipotle restaurant in Rochester, Minnesota, on November 23, 2021. Bailey pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct in the third degree in January 2024. Famuyide's claims include negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.

RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION BACKGROUND: A Rule 30(b)(6) deposition allows a party to require a corporation to designate one or more representatives to testify on specified topics, with that testimony binding the organization. Famuyide noticed a 30(b)(6) deposition on May 30, 2025, with 23 topics, for June 20, 2025 in Minneapolis. Chipotle objected to all but three topics and said it could not prepare a witness in time. After a meet-and-confer, Famuyide served an amended notice on June 27, 2025, revising topics and moving the date to August 12, 2025 in Newport Beach, California, at Chipotle's request — after the July 29, 2025 fact discovery deadline. On July 7, 2025, Chipotle's counsel Matthew Treco sent a letter withdrawing objections to five more topics (5, 6, 8, 14, and 15), leaving only eight topics undisputed at that point.

On July 30, 2025, the Court held an informal conference and instructed the parties to proceed with the deposition, leave it open if disputes arose, and that Famuyide could file a motion to compel afterward. Chipotle's counsel agreed to this approach.

At 9:01 p.m. on August 11, 2025 — the night before the deposition, after Famuyide's counsel had already flown to California — Chipotle filed a Motion for Protective Order seeking to block testimony on Topics 3–8, 10–19, and 21–24. This motion included topics (5, 6, 8, 14, and 15) for which Chipotle had already withdrawn its objections and made no attempt to meet and confer about that reversal. Chipotle's counsel acknowledged at the September 30, 2025 hearing that he had forgotten about the July 7 withdrawal when filing the motion.

At the deposition, Chipotle produced witness Tammy Simpson only as to Topics 1, 5, 9, 14, and 20, thereby withdrawing its prior agreement as to Topics 6, 8, and 15 without explanation. Simpson testified she had prepared for only three to four hours starting August 8. Her testimony was contradictory on key issues (e.g., background check policies, the reason for Famuyide's termination). Famuyide's counsel stated on the record that the deposition was not concluded.

MOTIONS AT ISSUE: 1. Chipotle Services, LLC's Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 124) — seeking to preclude testimony on Topics 3–8, 10–19, 21–24. 2. Famuyide's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (Dkt. 158) — seeking a second deposition, monetary and evidentiary sanctions, and a finding that Chipotle's objections to EEOC consent decree discovery were waived.

Note: Chipotle filed a 'combined memorandum' that also functioned as a reply brief in support of its protective order motion, but the Local Rules prohibit reply briefs on non-dispositive motions without leave of court. The court considered that filing only as opposition to Famuyide's motion to compel.

LEGAL STANDARDS APPLIED: - Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6): Corporations must designate and adequately prepare witnesses to give complete, knowledgeable, binding testimony on noticed topics. - Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1): Discovery is permitted of any relevant, non-privileged matter proportional to the needs of the case. - Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c): Protective orders require the movant to certify a good-faith meet-and-confer attempt. - Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(ii), (a)(5)(A): Courts may compel discovery and award fees when a motion to compel is granted, unless the opposing party's position was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award unjust. - Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3): Failure to appear for a deposition is sanctionable but may be excused if a protective order motion is pending. - Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2): Courts may sanction persons who impede, delay, or frustrate a deposition. - D. Minn. Local Rule 7.1(a): Parties must meet and confer before filing a motion. - D. Minn. Local Rule 1.3: Courts may impose sanctions for rule violations.

KEY RULINGS:

1. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER — DENIED IN ENTIRETY.

As to Topics 5, 6, 8, 14, and 15: The court found Chipotle failed to meet and confer in good faith before filing the protective order motion as to these topics, because it had already withdrawn its objections to them on July 7 and then reversed course without notice or discussion. Mr. Treco admitted he had forgotten about the withdrawal. The court also rejected Chipotle's claim that statements at the July 30 hearing satisfied the meet-and-confer requirement. Denial based on failure to meet and confer is an independent ground for each of these topics.

As to all disputed topics, the court rejected Chipotle's general arguments: - The use of 'all facts' language in a topic does not automatically make it insufficiently particular; the court assessed each topic individually. - The use of 'including' does not defeat reasonable particularity. - Having responded to a topic through other discovery (interrogatories, document production) does not automatically bar a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the same subject, because such deposition produces binding corporate testimony. - The number of topics (22) is not inherently excessive for this case.

Topic-by-topic rulings: The court found each of Topics 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 to be reasonably particular and within the scope of discovery, overruling each of Chipotle's specific objections. Notably: - Topic 14 (reasons for Famuyide's termination): The corporate witness gave contradictory and assumptive testimony and had not investigated the relevant records. Chipotle's use of 'purported leave of absence' contradicted its own pleading admitting a leave of absence occurred. - Topic 15 (circumstances of former employees no longer working at Chipotle): Chipotle repeatedly argued based on the original topic language (which referenced 'termination') rather than the amended language (which referenced 'no longer work at Chipotle'), which the court found 'confounding.' - Topic 23 (EEOC consent decrees): The court found Chipotle's repeated representation that the Ear of Corn restaurant 'is not and has never been covered by any consent decree' to be simply wrong. The Jerome Consent Decree (EEOC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, No. 8:20-cv-02128, M.D. Fla.) expressly required Chipotle Services, LLC to 'maintain' anti-harassment policies 'nationwide,' which necessarily included the Ear of Corn restaurant. The court found Chipotle's arguments on this point meritless. - Topics 21 and 22 (evidence preservation): The court found adequate factual basis for 'discovery about discovery' given testimony that employees communicated via text and GroupMe messages that Chipotle had not produced.

2. MOTION TO COMPEL — GRANTED (except as to evidentiary sanctions).

The court ordered a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on Topics 4–6, 8, 11–19, and 21–24, to take place in person in Minneapolis at Famuyide's counsel's offices (or another location of Famuyide's choosing), within 30 days of the order, with at least 7 hours of examination time. All deposition costs (court reporter, video) are Chipotle's responsibility. The court declined to impose evidentiary sanctions (which would have established disputed facts against Chipotle) because Chipotle did have a pending protective order motion at the time of the deposition, even though it was filed at the last minute without proper meet-and-confer.

3. MONETARY SANCTIONS — AWARDED.

a. Fees and costs for the Motion to Compel: Awarded to Famuyide against Chipotle and its lead outside counsel Martenson, Hasbrouck & Simon LLP, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The court found Chipotle's objections were not substantially justified, as most were based on outdated topic language or a fundamental misunderstanding of Rule 30(b)(6)'s purpose.

b. Travel expenses for the August 12, 2025 California deposition: Awarded to Famuyide against Chipotle and Martenson, Hasbrouck & Simon LLP, including counsel's hourly rate for travel time, hotel, flight, and other reasonable expenses. Basis: Local Rule 1.3, Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2), and the court's inherent authority to manage proceedings. The court found Chipotle's last-minute reversal on agreed topics impeded and frustrated the deposition.

Procedure for both fee awards: Famuyide must serve a statement of expenses within 14 days of the order. If disputed, Chipotle has 7 days to file objections; Famuyide has 7 days to respond. The court will decide the amounts on the papers.

4. MANDATORY LOCAL COUNSEL PARTICIPATION — ORDERED.

As a further sanction, the court ordered that Chipotle's local Minnesota counsel, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, must actively participate going forward in all aspects of the case, including: reviewing all correspondence, participating in all meet-and-confers, reviewing and signing all court filings, and appearing in person at all depositions and court proceedings (or by audio/video if the court holds a remote proceeding). The court cited Cronin v. Sanuwave Health, Inc., No. 23-CV-1295 (SRN/ECW), 2024 WL 3518142 (D. Minn. July 24, 2024), and its inherent authority.

PROCEDURAL NOTE: Chipotle's pro hac vice (out-of-state) counsel, Ms. Bulat and Mr. Treco of Martenson, Hasbrouck & Simon LLP, were responsible for the sanctioned conduct. The court also noted that Ms. Bulat's dismissal of the July 7 letter at the deposition ('I don't know what document you're referring to') was concerning, and that her letter to opposing counsel after the deposition contained unprofessional, personal attacks in violation of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.