The number of lawyers who don’t understand even the most basic concepts of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is astounding.
Some greatest hits I’ve heard:
“There isn’t one person who knows about all this stuff.”
Great. Designate multiple people. That’s exactly what the rule allows.
“The company doesn’t have any knowledge about some of these topics.”
Ok, then you still need to produce a witness who says, under oath, “The company has no knowledge.”
“The person I would designate was already deposed.”
That was as an individual. A 30(b)(6) deposition is different. If you want to designate them that’s fine, but I’ll need to depose them as the company rep.
Witness: “I don’t have any personal knowledge about this topic.”
That’s not good enough. The witness has an obligation to be prepared on the company’s knowledge, not just their own.
“Objection, that question isn’t within the scope of the topics.”
The topics don’t constrain what questions can be asked. The topics determine what the witness must be prepared to answer on behalf of the organization. Questions can go beyond the topics, though if they do there may be issues about whether the answers bind the organization.
Rule 30(b)(6) isn’t new. But too many lawyers treat it like it is. If you’re defending one, read the rule. Then read the cases. And prepare your witness(es) to meet their obligations.
Wouldn't you agree? Join the conversation with me on LinkedIn.
