Health Dimensions Rehabilitation, Inc., et al. v. RehabCare Group Inc.
Filing
418
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of the United States to compel is DENIED as moot in part and GRANTED in part as set forth above. (Doc. No. 339.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 8/14/13. (KXS)
Health Dimensions Rehabilitation, Inc., et al. v. RehabCare Group Inc.
Doc. 418
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
HEALTH DIMENSIONS
REHABILITATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REHABCARE GROUP, INC.;
REHAB SYSTEMS OF MISSOURI;
HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., and
REHABCARE GROUP EAST, INC.;
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:12CV00848 AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion (Doc. No. 339) of the United States to
compel Defendants RehabCare Sytems of Missouri, LLC, (“RSM”) and Health Systems,
Inc., (“HSI”) (1) to compel supplemental responses to RSM Interrogatory 6 and HSI
Interrogatory 5, by providing the principal facts in support of the defenses RSM and HSI
intend to raise in this litigation; and (2) to compel a second deposition, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Evidence 30(b)(6), of Scott Hinkle, or a deposition of another individual, on five
identified topics (Topics 3, 4, 11, 18, and 19) on which the United States asserts Hinkle was
unprepared at his deposition on May 3, 2013.1 For the reasons set forth below, this motion
shall be denied as moot with respect to the interrogatory responses, and granted with
In its reply, the United States withdrew that aspect of the motion that sought to compel a
response to RSM Interrogatory 4.
1
Dockets.Justia.
respect to a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, limited to the five topics identified by the
government, and limited to three hours.
Responses to RSM Interrogatory 6 and HSI Interrogatory 5
Based upon the representation of RSM and HSI that they would provide the United
States with the facts to support the affirmative defenses they intend to raise, this aspect of
the motion to compel shall be denied as moot. If the United States is not satisfied with the
responses and feels it must file another motion to compel on the matter, it remains free to
do so.
Second Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
A Rule 30(b)(6) deponent “does not give his personal opinion. Rather, he presents
the corporation’s position on the topic. The Rule 30(b)(6) deposition thus serves a unique
function: it is a sworn corporate admission that is binding on the corporation. A named
entity may not take the position that its documents, responses to interrogatories, or other
written discovery already produced is sufficient.” CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Chicago
Bancorp, Inc., No. 4:12–CV–00246 CDP, 2013 WL 3946116, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 31,
2013) (citations omitted). Once noticed of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, a designating entity
has the duty to produce a knowledgeable witness; to prepare the witness to testify on
matters not only known by the deponent, but those that should be reasonably known by the
designating entity; and to substitute an appropriate deponent when it becomes apparent that
the previous deponent is unable to respond to certain relevant areas of inquiry. Id.
Here, upon review of the record, the Court will grant the motion of the United States
to compel RSM and HSI to produce a suitably prepared witness with respect to the five
2
topics in question. The deposition, which shall take place within 21 days of the date of
this Order at a convenient time for all concerned, shall not exceed four hours. The Court
grants the request of the United States that RSM and HSI be required to pay costs and
expenses related to the second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, to the extent of $250.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of the United States to compel is
DENIED as moot in part and GRANTED in part as set forth above. (Doc. No. 339.)
________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of August, 2013.
3
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?