On July 13, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report, in which petitioners stated that the 30(b)(6) deposition "was intended to obtain information about the persons and entities having knowledge about the ROK's assets" to allow petitioners to target discovery efforts, but provided "very little useful information." Joint Status Report [Dkt. # 111] at 3–4. They urged the Court "turn its attention to Petitioners' still-pending First Request for Production of Documents." Id.
at 4. Respondent disputed petitioners' assessment, and it advised that it planned to file a motion for protective order against further discovery. Id.
at 5. Three days later, on July 16, 2019, Kazakhstan filed its motion, which the parties briefed,4
and on August 13, 2019, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the motion. See
Hr'g Tr. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion, stating:
I have ruled. And I have indicated that the next step will be that respondent produce the documents responsive to the petitioners' request for production of documents.
* * *
The Court... order[s] that the parties undertake an effort to meet and confer in... a renewed effort to agree upon limits of either the number of requests or the definitions.
Hr'g Tr. at 34, 40.