RULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
JON STUART SCOLES, Chief Magistrate Judge.
On the 6th day of January, 2014, these matters came on for telephonic hearing on the Motion for Protective Oder [ sic ] filed by Defendant Deere & Company on December 11, 2013. The Plaintiffs were represented by their attorneys, Gregory T. Racette and Amy Pellegrin. Defendants were represented by their attorneys, Frank Harty and Ryan W. Leemkuil.
The Plaintiffs are pursuing claims arising from their employment at Deere. Plaintiffs variously assert discrimination, retaliation, defamation, and negligence. The dispute now before the Court is whether Plaintiffs are entitled to take the deposition of Samuel R. Allen, Deere's chairman and chief executive officer. Deere seeks a protective order pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(c), asserting that "deposing Mr. Allen serves no purpose but to subject Deere and Mr. Allen to annoyance and undue burden." Plaintiffs argue that Allen has "unique, firsthand knowledge" that is discoverable.
Protective orders which totally prohibit the deposition of an individual are rarely granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Rolscreen Co. v. Pella Products of St. Louis, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 92, 96 (S.D. Iowa 1992) (citing Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1979)). As the party seeking to prevent the deposition, Deere carries a heavy burden to show why discovery should be denied. Groupion, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 2012 WL 359699, *2 (N.D. Cal.). Here, Deere relies on the so-called "apex doctrine." "The apex doctrine protects high-level corporate officials from deposition unless (1) the executive has unique or special knowledge of the facts at issue and (2) other less burdensome avenues for obtaining the information sought have been exhausted.'" Bank of the Ozarks v. Capital Mortg. Corp., 2012 WL 293049, *1 (E.D. Ark.). See also Groupion, 2012 WL 359699 at *2 (same). The Court must balance the compelling interests of allowing discovery and protecting the parties and deponents from undue burden. Bank of the Ozarks, 2012 WL 293049 at *1.
Plaintiffs apparently want to question Allen regarding two matters. In March 2003, there was a proposal that Gary Lenius' pay grade level would be reduced. On March 6, 2003, Lenius sent an email to Allen, complaining of the proposed reduction in his pay grade. Five days later, after the decision was reversed, Lenius wrote to Allen again:
Sam, since no one is talking, I can only assume that you were responsible for getting this all this reversed. Words can't describe how grateful I am If you ever need anything, let me know. I'll be there to help in any way I can!
Email from Gary G. Lenius to Samuel R. Allen, dated March 11, 2003 (Deere's Exhibit D).
In his deposition taken on August 7, 2013 (ten years after the events), Lenius was asked what he did in order to get the decision reversed. Lenius began his answer by stating: "Sam Allen told me not to talk about this." Lenius testified that he sent an email to Allen on Thursday or Friday, and was advised when he returned to work on Monday that the decision had been reversed. Lenius concluded his answer by stating: "I can only assume Sam made all this go away. He told me he notified some people, the appropriate people, and it got rectified." In response to the follow-up question, however, Lenius backed off the suggestion that he had spoken with Allen.
Q. You said Sam told you. Did you actually speak with Sam about this, or did you communicate with him by email?
A. I communicated by email, and he sent me an email back, which you've got a copy of, don't you? I mean it's in this thing somewhere. I can't quite remember the dates. I really didn't want to talk about Sam on that particular issue.
Deposition of Gary Lenius, 81:7-14 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3).
In a declaration filed in support of the instant motion, however, Allen states that "I am certain that I never contacted any Deere employee about changing the grade level of any of the Plaintiffs, including Gary Lenius." Ted Breidenbach, who Lenius believes was responsible for the decision to reduce Lenius' pay, was asked at his deposition whether he ever "received word" from Allen regarding the restoration of Lenius' pay grade. Breidenbach responded "absolutely not." There is no evidence that Allen sent Lenius an email on this issue in 2003.
In support of their argument that Allen needs to be deposed, Plaintiffs also cite emails sent to Allen by Gary Lenius and Wanda Lenius, and Allen's responses. On July 19, 2004, Lenius sent an email to Allen, with copies to Wanda Lenius and Gayle Forster, stating:
Sam, I'd appreciate it if you or someone at corporate would visit with my wife, Wanda, and Gayle Forster about numerous personnel issues in the AG Division SM Dept. Over a dozen people have left this dept, several have quit including one very close friend of mind, and the disturbing stories I hear could fill a book. I sense several people's stress levels are reaching a point where some quality listening and productive actions need to be taken immediately for the good of our company. The sad part is that these have been discussed through the proper channels with their manager, Brian Matson, his manager, Clyde D'Cruz, and exit interview with Barry Schaffter (which I personally ...