2007 WL 1054279 (D. Kan. 2007)April 9, 2007

Joe Dernbach

Hartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC (Plaintiff)

Midwest Division, Inc (Defendants)◦ Filed a joint motion to compel Heartland to

produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness with knowledge of its production of documents and data

Defendants gave Hartland notice on Nov. 14, 2006 and identified 55 separate topics for deposition

The court allowed the D to split the notice deposition topics into two Rule 30(b)(6) depositions◦ 11 deposition hours over 2 days for topics 1- 17◦ 24 hours over 4 days for topics 18-55

The D commenced their deposition of topics 1-17 on Nov 28, 2006

Heartland had Ms. Holley be the Rule 30(b)(6) representative who was unable to answer all the question presented to her

The D’s motion (in this case) concerns only whether Heartland has complied with the Requirements of Rule 30(b)(6) with respect to its Designated representative’s responses to topics 8, 9, 10, 16, and 17

Rule 30(b)(6)◦ Notice or Subpoena Directed to an organization◦ (requesting party) must describe with reasonable

particularity the matters for examination◦ The named organization must designate a

person(s) to testify on its behalf The person must testify about information known or

reasonable available to the organization Rule 26(b)(1)

◦ discovery into any matter, not privileged and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

The court explains rule 30(b)(6) but also places emphasis on the fact that the corporation must prepare their testifying representatives so that they may give a complete, knowledgeable and binding answer on behalf of the corporation.◦ The rule implies that the rep. reviews all matters

known or reasonably available in preparation for the deposition

For purpose of making the deposition meaningful and to prevent sandbagging the opponent

Did the D’s notice to topics 1-17 describe matters with reasonable particularity?

If so did Heartland complete its duty to adequately prepare a knowledgeable witness with respect to the topics described in the notice?◦ In this case the question surrounds only topics

8,9, 10,16, and 17.

D did describe the matters with reasonable particularity◦ Provided specific examples of what the D was looking

for Heartland however did not provide a knowledge

able person with respects to topics 10, 16, 17 Court ruled that D may conduct an additional

Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on topics 10,16, an17◦ Deposition is limited to questions 1,2,4,5,and 6 (page

278-79)◦ Deposition will be limited to 6 hours in duration

Why wasn’t Heartland required to compensate the defendant for the extra deposition time required?

Is it to high of a burden to require Heartland to prepare their spokesperson for such an in-depth deposition?