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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?