Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiffs sought to compel the continuation of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and impose sanctions on the defendant for issuing improper instructions not to answer certain deposition questions. The court examined the challenge of distinguishing factual inquiries from questions that might reveal the attorney's work-product, particularly in the context of non-lawyer witnesses prepared by legal counsel. Both parties acknowledged the legitimacy of using Rule 30(b)(6) depositions to obtain facts related to the defendant’s claims and defenses, although contention interrogatories were suggested as a potentially more effective method. The court determined that further oral questioning would likely lead to recurring disputes and, therefore, allowed the deposition to proceed through written questions under Rule 31, which is more convenient and cost-effective. Plaintiffs were instructed to submit their proposed written questions for review, and the court set a process for handling objections. The issue of sanctions was deferred, and alternative methods for gathering information were recommended. The court's order partially granted and partially denied the motion to compel, permitting the deposition’s continuation in written form.
Legal Issues Addressed
Alternative Discovery Methods: Contention Interrogatoriessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court suggests that contention interrogatories may be more effective than 30(b)(6) depositions for obtaining certain information without risking exposure of legal strategies.
Reasoning: However, there is a contention that contention interrogatories may be a more effective method for this purpose.
Court's Discretion on Sanctionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court defers the issue of sanctions related to improper instructions not to answer during the deposition.
Reasoning: The issue of sanctions for improper instructions is set aside.
Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions and Attorney Work-Product Doctrinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addresses the balance between allowing factual inquiry during a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and protecting attorney work-product, particularly when non-lawyer witnesses are prepared by counsel.
Reasoning: The main issue is how to allow plaintiffs to gather factual information during the deposition without infringing on the defendant's attorney work-product protections.
Use of Rule 31 Written Depositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court opts for Rule 31 written depositions as a practical solution to continue the deposition process, allowing for preemptive resolution of objections.
Reasoning: Instead, the Court will allow for the continuation of the deposition through written questions, as permitted under Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.