Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation

Similar documents
Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing Witnesses

Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:

Deposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses

Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class

Provisional Patent Applications: Preserving IP Rights in First-to-File System

Witness Examination Strategies in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Direct and Cross Examination of Lay Witnesses

Summary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation

Defeating Rule 23(b)(3)'s Predominance Requirement Using Defenses and Counterclaims

GT Crystal Systems, LLC and GT Solar Hong Kong, Ltd. Chandra Khattak, Kedar Gupta, and Advanced RenewableEnergy Co., LLC. NO.

Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Michael A. Brusca, Shareholder, Stark & Stark, Lawrenceville, N.J.

Corporate Depositions: Limiting In-House Counsel Depos and Selecting/Preparing Employees for 30(b)(6) Depos

Third-Party Legal Opinions in Corporate Transactions

Leveraging USPTO Technology Evolution Pilot Program

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Leveraging the AIA s Joinder Provision, Recent Decisions, and New Court Procedures in Defending Infringement Disputes

A Primer on 30(b)(6) Depositions

Article III Standing and Rule 23(b)(3) Certification: Emerging Litigation Trends

Leveraging Post-Grant Patent Proceedings Before the PTAB

Evidentiary Disclosures in Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings

FRCP 45 Third-Party Subpoenas: Using or Objecting to Subpoenas to Obtain Testimony and Evidence

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Extraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act and Protection of IP Rights: Pursuing Foreign Infringers

Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit

Strategies for Defending 30(b)(6) Depositions

Insurance Declaratory Judgment Actions and the Federal Abstention Doctrine: Strategies and Limitations

PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible Parties

Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield

Defeating Liability Waivers in Personal Injury Cases: Substantive and Procedural Strategies

Litigating Employment Discrimination

TAKING EFFECTIVE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITIONS IN WAGE & HOUR CASES

Managing Patent Infringement Risk in Product Development

Rendering Third-Party Legal Opinions on LLC Status, Power, Action, Enforceability and Membership Interests

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Best Practices For NC In House Counsel To Avoid Being Deposed

Environmental Obligations in Bankruptcy: Reconciling the Conflicting Goals of Bankruptcy and Environmental Laws

Breach of Employment Contract Litigation: Contract Interpretation, Materiality of Breach, Defenses, Damages

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Satya Narayan, Attorney, Royse Law Firm, Palo Alto, Calif.

Statistical Evidence in Employment Class Actions After Tyson Foods

Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield

Challenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions

Expert Witnesses: Leveraging New Rule 26 Amendments Preserving Work Product Immunity for Expert Opinions and Reports

E-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements

Patent Reexamination: The New Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings

Solving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles

HIPAA Compliance During Litigation and Discovery

This Practice Note discusses the key. preparing a corporate representative OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(B)(6)

Spoliation of Evidence in Personal Injury Claims: Mitigation and Prevention

FCRA Class Actions in Employment on the Rise: Avoiding and Defending Claims

Summary Judgment Motions in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions: Pre- and Post-Certification Strategies

Avoiding Ethical Pitfalls in the Deposition Process

Avoiding the Deposition Debacle: Tips for Successfully Taking and Defending the Insurer s Corporate Deposition

Effective Discovery Strategies in Class Action Litigation Leveraging Trends and Best Practices for Depositions, Expert Witnesses and E-Discovery

Proportionality in E Discovery: Emerging Strategies Leveraging Proportionality Tools to Reduce E Discovery Abuses and Expenses

Preparing Witnesses for Deposition: Overcoming Challenges With 30(b)(6) Representatives and Fact and Expert Witnesses

Patent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced Damages

Third-Party Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver Exceptions: Kovel, Common Interest and Functional Equivalent Doctrines

Overcoming FLSA Collective Action Discovery Challenges Before and After Conditional Certification of Opt-In Class

New ERISA Supreme Court Rulings in Conkright and Hardt Leveraging Court Guidance on Deferential Review Standards and Attorney Fee Awards

Discussion Session #1

Witnesses and Working with Experts Best Practices to Avoid Unethical Coaching of Lay and Expert Witnesses

Taking and Defending Key Depositions in Employment and Wage and Hour Cases

Lay Witness and Expert Witness Depositions in Personal Injury Cases: Advanced Deposition Techniques

Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:

Case 6:09-cv GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Standards Related Patents and Standard Setting Organizations Navigating the Challenges of SSOs: Licensing, Disclosure and Litigation

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

New Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Impact on Chapter 7, 12 and 13 Secured Creditors

The 2010 Amendments to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Brief Reminder

Strategic Use of Joint Defense Agreements in Litigation: Avoiding Disqualification and Privilege Waivers

Law Amendment and the FCPA Best Practices for Responding to a Chinese Government Commercial Bribery Investigation

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Avoiding Pitfalls and Using the Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition to Strengthen Your Client s Themes

Social Media Evidence in Personal Injury Litigation: Admissibility Challenges

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Wilson Chu, Partner, McDermott Will & Emery, Dallas

Structuring MOUs, LOIs, Term Sheets and Other Nonbinding Legal Documents

Mexico's New Anti-Corruption Laws and Implementing Regulations: Private Entities and Individuals in the Crosshairs

Patent Licensing: Advanced Tactics

Expert testimony almost always has a significant role

6/5/2018 THE RULE AND THE NOTICE THE STANDARD NOTICE ATTACKING THE NOTICE, PREPARING FOR AND DEFENDING THE RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

Case 2:14-cv PAM-CM Document 128 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 23 PageID 984

FLSA Collective Action Discovery Challenges Effective Approaches Before and After Conditional Certification of the Opt In Class

2010 Amendments to Expert Witness Discovery Under Federal Rule 26 Address Four Issues:

Design Patents and IPR: Challenging and Defending Validity at the PTAB

State Wage and Hour Class Actions Navigating Procedural and Substantive Challenges in Pursuing or Defending Dual Filed Claims

Daubert Motions in Construction Litigation: Making and Defending Challenges

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Perfecting and Maintaining Article 9 Security Interests

Pleading Standards, Affirmative Defenses and Motions to Dismiss in Federal Court

Appellate Practice: Identifying Issues for Appeal, Drafting Questions Presented, and Briefing the Issues

Page 2 of 5 Forensic investigation of building failures and damages due to materials, design, construction defects, contract issues, maintenance and w

Patent Litigation Before the International Trade Commission: Latest Developments

Case 1:09-cv BMC Document 19 Filed 12/31/09 Page 1 of 5. Plaintiff, : :

Witness Preparation: Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Challenges

Corporate Representative Depositions: Selection and Preparation

Case 1:11-mc RLW Document 4 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

Case 2:16-cv AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Transcription:

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing Witnesses WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2015 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Brian M. Brown, Shareholder, Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger, Reno, Nev. Allegra J. Lawrence-Hardy, Partner, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, Atlanta, Ga. The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-370-2805 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps: In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of attendees at your location Click the word balloon button to send In order for us to process your CLE, you must confirm your participation by completing and submitting the attendance verification and evaluation. An evaluation and attendance verification form will be e-mailed to attendees within 24 hours. For additional information about CLE credit processing call us at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35.

Brian M. Brown Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger bmb@thorndal.com

Introduction Litigants may discover information from a corporation by serving a notice which requires the corporation to designate a person or persons to testify in a deposition on specifically enumerated topics. FRCP 30(b)(6) 5

A party may... name as the deponent a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency and describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested.... [T]he organization so named shall designate on or more officers, directors, or managing agents or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify. The person so designated shall testify as to matters known are reasonably available to the organization.... 6

The Comments to FRCP 30(b)(6) State Three Reasons in Support of the Rule. Assist parties in determining whether a particular employee of a corporation is a managing agent. Prevent bandying. Limit the number of employees to be deposed. 7

Initial Issues to Evaluate Was the notice procedurally proper? Does the notice satisfy the rule requirements? Was service proper? Is adequate time provided to respond? 8

Items to Consider Designated topics Location of deposition Length of deposition Number of witnesses required to testify based upon identified topics Privileged information. i.e., attorney-client work product, trade secret, etc. 9

Evaluating the Decision to Serve Objections Identify all potential objections Identify any topics which the employer has no information Serving Objections Check jurisdictional rules on requirement of serving or filing objections FRCP 32(d)(1) requires service on parties Filing objections may not result in ruling 10

Procedural Defects If a defect exists is it real or technical? Cost of motion practice Goodwill with opposing counsel Is the Request Vague and Ambiguous? Are the designated topics very broad? A large number of documents is requested? Cost of gathering information Exceeds seven hours of deposition time per witness Solutions Meet and confer with opposing counsel Negotiate resolution of dispute Negotiate an amended notice Serve objections Move for protective order 11

Filing a Reciprocal 30(b)(6) Notice May Not Be Applicable in an Employment Law Context 30(b)(6) is only applicable to a party 12

Allegra J. Lawrence-Hardy, Esq. allegra.lawrence-hardy@sutherland.com Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation

SELECTING THE 30(B)(6) WITNESS(ES) 2015 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP

Selecting the 30(b)(6) Witness(es) A witness with detailed knowledge of the subject matter noticed presents advantages over a witness with isolated knowledge. Witness must represent the knowledge of the corporation. Elan Microelectronics Corp. v. Pixcir Microelectronics Co. Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114164, 2013 WL 4101813 (D. Nev. August 13, 2013). Starlight Internat l. Inc. v. Herlihy, 186 F.R.D. 626, 639 (D. Kan. 1999). 15 2015 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP

Selecting the 30(b)(6) Witness(es) Designating a lawyer, or someone else privy to extensive privileged information, as 30(b)(6) witness can invite trouble. An attorney who serves as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness may not frustrate or impede the deposition under the banner of privilege. New Jersey v. Sprint Corp., 03-2071-JWL, 2010 WL 610671, at *3 (D. Kan. Feb. 19, 2010). Local rules in some jurisdictions may preclude a lawyer from serving as the Rule 30(b)(6) witness for ethical reasons. See Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Cnty. of Dickson, Tenn., 3:08-0229, 2010 WL 5300871, (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 20, 2010)(local rules required lawyer to be necessary witness ). 16 2015 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP

Selecting the 30(b)(6) Witness(es) Carefully consider whether to identify as a 30(b)(6) witness someone who has been or is likely to be separately noticed for a fact deposition. This witness may be subject to provide testimony in two separate depositions, each subject to the 7-hour rule. Sabre v. First Dominion Capital, LLC, 01CIV2145BSJHBP, 2001 WL 1590544, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2001). Deposing counsel may abuse the opportunity and overreach. 17 2015 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP

Selecting the 30(b)(6) Witness(es) There are benefits to limiting the number of witnesses who will address multiple topics in response to 30(b)(6) notice. One designee may not be able to testify completely where the subject matter involves complex facts and numerous legal issues. McCormick-Morgan, Inc. v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 134 F.R.D. 275, 286 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Multiple Rule 30(b)(6) designees count as one deposition for ten-deposition limit. I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 322, 324 (E.D. Va. 2012). Each designee may be deposed for up to seven hours. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(d)(1); Todd v. Precision Boilers, Inc., No. 07-cv- 00112, at *1 (W.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008). Exceptions to the seven-hour rule. In re Rembrandt Technologies, 2009 WL 1258761, at *14 (D. Colo. May 4, 2009); E.E.O.C. v. The Vail Corp., 2008 WL 5104811, at *3 (D. Colo. Dec. 3, 2008). 18 2015 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP

Educating the witness Preparing the 30(b)(6) witness Witness cheat sheets 19

A 30(b)(6) witness is testifying as to the employer s knowledge on the identified subject areas Witness must know the facts/policies that are the subject of the notice Potential sanctions if witnesses produced do not have the requisite knowledge of the subject matter identified in the notice 20

Similarities Between Fact Witnesses and 30(b)(6) Witnesses Review key documents Review witness statements Differences Review policies Review applicable legal standards/regulations The Witness Must Present as Prepared and Knowledgeable 21

Cheat Sheets Keep in mind these notes are discoverable Detailed facts to refresh witness s recollection Assist witness with complex subject matter Assist witness with voluminous factual information Should you ask questions of your own witness during the deposition 22

PROBLEM AREAS 2015 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP

Problem Areas There are appropriate actions to take when the questioner goes beyond the scope of the notice. 24 2015 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP

Problem Areas If the witness proves to be insufficiently knowledgeable about a subject area, there are solutions. The company has a duty to designate an additional designee who will be knowledgeable about the subject area. Kress v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, LLP, 2:08-CV-0965 LKK AC, 2013 WL 2421704, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2013). Producing an unprepared witness is tantamount to a failure to appear for the deposition. United States v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356, 363 (M.D.N.C. 1996). If compelled by the court, sanctions may also be awarded to the party seeking the deposition. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizont, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 203, 215-216 (E.D. Pa. 2008). 25 2015 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP

Problem Areas 26 If a witness provides inaccurate or incomplete information at the deposition, STAY CALM. There are remedies. In some cases, a court will require an extraordinary explanation before the company will be permitted to retreat from binding admissions in the testimony of its Rule 30(b)(6) designee. Estate of Scott W. Thompson v. Kawaski Heavy Indus., 291 F.R.D. 297, 309 (N.D. Iowa 2013). See also, Rainey v. American Forest & Paper Ass n, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 82, 94 (D.D.C. 1998) (must establish that information was not known or accessible); Hyde v. Stanley Tools, 107 F. Supp. 2d 992, 993 (E.D. La. 2000) (inconsistent affidavit may be accepted if accompanied by reasonable explanation). Rule 30(b)(6) tesitmony not a judicial adminission absolutely binding on the party. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizont, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 203, 212 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (quoting 8A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 2103 (Supp. 2007)). 2015 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP