Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

District of Minnesota Does Not Require Deposed Entity to Identify Topics on Which Each 30(b)(6) Witness Will Testify

July 29, 2020

District of Minnesota Does Not Require Deposed Entity to Identify Topics on Which Each 30(b)(6) Witness Will Testify

July 29, 2020

Home » Resources » Blogs

 

On June 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant to identify the topics on which each Rule 30(b)(6) witness would testify because the language used in Rule 30(b)(6) “reflects a deliberate choice to make any such advance disclosure voluntary.” Grupo Petrotemex, SA DE CV et al v. Polymetrix AG, No. 0-16-cv-02401, at 4 (D.Minn. June 23, 2020).

Plaintiff Grupo Petrotemex SA DE CV (“GPT/DAK”) sought to compel defendant Polymetrix AG (“Polymetrix”) to identify the topics on which each Rule 30(b)(6) witness intended to testify at least one week before the depositions.

Magistrate Judge Bowbeer denied the motion to compel, finding that requiring the Court to mandate advance disclosure would overstep the Court’s boundaries. In support of her conclusion, Magistrate Judge Bowbeer emphasized that the conclusion was proper given the potential sanctions for failure to present a properly prepared witness and the likelihood that preparation may not be completed until shortly before depositions begin. Id. at 4.

Magistrate Judge Bowbeer also noted that parties are required to “identify clearly and unequivocally all of the topics about which he or she has been designated to testify” at the beginning of the deposition. Id. (emphasis in original). Moreover, the party noticing the 30(b)(6) deposition has the right to set the order in which it will conduct the deposition on those topics, “even if that means that witnesses may have to make multiple appearances as their respective topics come up.” Id. at 4-5.

Authors: Joseph Herriges, Veena Tripathi, Brianna Chamberlin


The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.

Related Tags

district-of-minnesota

Blog Authors

Brianna Chamberlin | Litigation Attorney, Minnesota
Brianna Chamberlin | Associate

Brianna Chamberlin is a litigation associate in Fish & Richardson’s Twin Cities office. Ms. Chamberlin’s practice spans a wide range of technologies, including small compound and biologic pharmaceuticals, chemicals, medical devices, oil and gas production, as well as memory devices and software. Ms. Chamberlin has handled various...

Headshot
Joseph A. Herriges | Principal

Joe Herriges is a Principal in the Twin Cities Office of Fish & Richardson, where he focuses on high-stakes patent litigation in a variety of technology areas, including automotive technology, pharmaceuticals, polymers, and retroreflective optics. Joe has extensive...

Headshot
Veena V. Tripathi | Associate

Veena Tripathi is an Associate in the Twin Cities office of Fish & Richardson. She was previously a summer associate with the firm. Her practice focuses on patent litigation and she has extensive experience in all aspects of the patent litigation process, including pleadings, discovery motions, pre-suit diligence, pre-trial motions,...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *