Love is in the air for eDiscovery case law! Our February 2024 monthly webinar of cases covered by the eDiscovery Today blog discusses disputes over possession of devices, forensic examination of ESI sources in an IP case,...more
A recent discovery ruling from an Ohio federal magistrate judge offers a helpful primer on how corporate representatives should prepare for depositions. The ruling, In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litig., No. 2:20-cv-3785...more
A good 30(b)(6) can have a dramatic effect on a variety of litigation issues, from privilege issues to dispositive ones. Finding the “right” witness (or group of witnesses) who have the knowledge and skillset to be a good...more
Previously, I wrote about a proposed amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) that would create a meet and confer requirement among counsel concerning the topics for examining a corporate representative in a...more
A pending amendment to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure obligates parties to “meet and confer” regarding subject matters for examination. Adopted and submitted to Congress by the U.S. Supreme Court in...more
Over the past several weeks the COVID-19 pandemic has brought much litigation to a grinding halt. While frustrating and disruptive to litigants and courts alike, the current “pause” may be an ideal time to revisit whether...more
In a prior alert, we discussed Delaware Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster’s Jan. 13, 2020, decision in Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation, a Section 220 books and records action brought...more
In a 63-page decision issued on Jan. 13, 2020, in Lebanon County Employees’ Retirement Fund v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery found that stockholders of...more
In the long-standing patent dispute between Sophos and RPost, Judge Casper recently issued the oft-sought but rarely received award of attorneys’ fees, after finding that the case was “exceptional.” The suit began in 2013,...more
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), corporations must designate and educate one or more witnesses to answer deposition questions based on the corporation's collective knowledge. Such depositions raise obvious privilege issues,...more
On November 9, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney (N.D. Tex.) entered an Order that serves as a reminder to corporate litigants and their counsel that the demands of Rule 30(b)(6) should not be disregarded...more
Mark Twain warned, “Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don’t tell them where they know the fish.” Litigants should heed this advice, as courts are proving to be less tolerant of discovery...more
A corporate entity is regarded by the law as a “person” for purposes of standing to sue and be sued, but an organization, whether corporation, partnership, governmental organization, or other entity, can act only through its...more
Potential plaintiffs and freshly sued defendants often discount the importance of damages analysis when it comes to litigation planning and execution. After all, disputes over liability receive far more attention during...more
SUCCESSOR CORPORATION - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) allows a party to take the deposition of an organization by identifying the topics about which the party seeks information from the corporation. In...more
In 279 B.C., King Pyrrhus of Epirus defeated the Roman army at the Battle of Asculum. King Pyrrus was not thrilled about the big win for Team Epirus. The victory was very costly – King Pyrrhus lost most of his army and many...more
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) permits a corporate representative to testify during deposition about matters within the corporation’s knowledge. This testimony does not require the corporate representative to have...more
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), corporations must designate a witness to testify about the corporation's knowledge. Surprisingly few courts have reconciled this requirement with the common if not universal role that lawyers...more
Failing to adequately prepare a corporate witness for his or her 30(b)(6) deposition can have serious consequences. In fact, courts treat an unprepared 30(b)(6) witness as a witness who simply never bothered to show up for...more
When we prepare 30(b)(6) corporate representatives and executives for their depositions, they are often fearful that the questioning attorney will try to trick them into admitting something that is not entirely accurate. They...more
In an order recently issued in EEOC v J.R. Baker Farms, LLC, et al., Case No. 7:14-CV-136 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 9, 2015), Senior Judge Hugh Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia compelled the EEOC to...more
The scope of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine for internal investigation reports has once again been clarified by the D.C. Circuit in a False Claims Act case against defense contractor KBR, Inc. In its...more
Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows corporations' adversaries to insist that the corporation select a spokesman to provide binding testimony about designated topics. These depositions almost...more
If you have ever been involved in litigation relating to a defunct company, then you know that problems such as who will serve as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative and who will verify the answers to interrogatories or provide...more
This portion of the materials will focus on the use and effect of 30(b)(6) deposition testimony. ...more