Redmond v. San Jose Police Department et al

Filing 129

ORDER REGARDING JOINT STATEMENT RE: RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION RESPONSE, re 126 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 4/6/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BLAIR REDMOND,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.14-cv-02345-BLF (SVK)

v.
SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING JOINT
STATEMENT RE: RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION RESPONSE
Re: Dkt. No. 126

12
13

The parties have submitted a Joint Statement Regarding Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition

14

Response (ECF 126). In the Joint Statement, the parties present three issues: 1) continuation of

15

Rule 30(b)(6) depositions beyond the fact discovery cutoff; 2) Defendant’s assertion that certain

16

additional 30(b)(6) depositions are not necessary as to certain topics; and 3) the appropriateness

17

of instructions not to answer during 30(b)(6) depositions. Two of the issues have been resolved.

18

The Court granted the parties’ request to continue depositions in April 2017 (ECF 128). The

19

parties are in agreement that instructions not to answer during a 30(b)(6) depositions are

20

inappropriate when based on questioning that may be beyond the scope of the 30(b)(6) notice.

21

(ECF 126 at 5-6.) Thus, the only issue that remains is the necessity of additional 30(b)(6)

22

depositions. Having read the statement and determined additional briefing and a hearing are

23

unnecessary, the Court rules as follows.

24

The parties and the court have a duty to secure “the just, speedy, and inexpensive

25

determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. When a party notices and

26

subpoenas a public entity, the named entity has a duty to designate “one or more officers,

27

directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf.” Fed. R. Civ.

28

P. 30(b)(6). The entity “may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the

1

person will testify,” and the designated persons “shall testify as to matters known or reasonably

2

available” to the entity. Id. An entity satisfies its duty under Rule 30(b)(6) by producing a live

3

witness that is knowledgeable on the subject matter identified as the area of inquiry. See La. Pac.

4

Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Inst. Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 487 (N.D. Cal. 2012). An entity may

5

also satisfy its Rule 30(b)(6) obligation by offering to be bound by prior deposition testimony

6

regarding a noticed Rule 30(b)(6) topic. See Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 203 F.R.D.

7

159, 163 (D. Del. 2001); E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., No. CV 05-03034-PHX-FJM, 2007 WL

8

1146446, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2007).
Plaintiff has requested a 30(b)(6) witness for over 30 topics. Defendant asserts that for

9

those topics it has either already produced individual fact witnesses or that no such witness exists.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff has agreed to evaluate the prior testimony of individual witnesses provided that the

12

Defendant identifies the relevant pages and lines of testimony that it is offering in lieu of

13

providing an additional 30(b)(6) witness. (ECF 126 at 4.) Defendant argues that being forced to

14

identify the precise testimony by line and page number would be overly burdensome. (ECF 126 at

15

5.)

16

Plaintiff is entitled to 30(b)(6) depositions. See La. Pac. Corp., 285 F.R.D. at 187. Rule 1,

17

however, favors designation of prior testimony, if sufficient, to avoid duplicative discovery efforts

18

and expenses. The Court therefore orders Defendant to identify the testimony it designates as

19

responsive to the 30(b)(6) notice by deposition topic, page number, and line. This Order is

20

without prejudice to Plaintiff to renew a request for deposition if Plaintiff can make a showing that

21

the designated testimony is insufficient.

22
23

SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/6/2017

24
25
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
2