Court Imposes Sanctions and Strikes Defense for Inadequate FRCP 30(b)(6) Designee

On Wednesday, Magistrate Judge Urbanski (W.D. Va.) addressed the issue of discovery sanctions in Spicer v. Universal Forest Products, a wrongful termination case. Of the various issues raised in the plaintiff's motion, what the court found “[m]ost disturbing of all [was] Universal’s abject failure to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).”

At his deposition, the company’s 30(b)(6) witness testified that he did no investigation into the topics listed in the deposition notice except to talk to the company’s counsel. Then, when plaintiff’s counsel asked about these conversations, the defendant’s counsel asserted attorney-client privilege. The court also noted that the company’s representative “was simply unaware of his role,” as he repeatedly stated that it was not his job to know certain relevant information, even though he admitted that this information “could have been obtained through investigation, had he done any.” Thus, the court concluded, “the 30(b)(6) deposition was a futile exercise for Spicer.” According to the court, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law require more of a corporation responding to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice than Universal has done here.”

In its analysis, the court reiterated that a corporation “must make a good-faith effort to designate people with knowledge of the matter sought by the opposing party and to adequately prepare its representatives so that they may give complete, knowledgeable, and nonevasive answers in deposition.” When a designee lacks knowledge of relevant facts and the company does not designate a knowledgeable alternative, “[s]anctions may be properly imposed.” The company’s actions were not excused simply because it provided the plaintiff with discoverable information through non-30(b)(6) depositions and document production.

In the end, the court ordered Universal to pay costs and fees associated with the Rule 30(b)(6) notice and deposition, as well as the motion for sanctions. The court also struck one of Universal’s defenses because the corporate designee had no information on the topic and trial was imminent in the case. According to the court, “[a] party simply cannot disregard its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as Universal has in this case and thwart discovery on such a material issue.”