When patients are injured by alleged malpractice in hospitals, nursing homes and other health care facilities, the plaintiff is often confronted with having to depose multiple fact witnesses employed by the defendant institution, all of whom have varying and sometimes contradictory accounts of what happened. In the case referenced in the attached motion, the plaintiff’s decedent had undergone a respiratory arrest a few hours after cervical spine surgery, with fatal brain damage. The hospital took the position that for plaintiff to discover what had happened, the plaintiff would have to depose all 40 providers who attended the patient that evening and the next day. The attached motion to compel argues that Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – in this case, the state court analog of the rule – requires the hospital to nominate a witness to describe the corporation’s collected knowledge of the event and its position about what had happened. The court granted the motion in the attached order. The hospital’s objection that the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition would violate its peer review privilege objection is addressed in the final paragraph of the order. This is similar to another court’s reasoning in what appears to be the only published decision on a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in the health care malpractice context: Wilson v. Lakner, 228 F.R.D. 524 (D. Md. 2005).