Summary
This Memorandum Opinion and Order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas addresses Defendants' and Intervenors' motions regarding a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate deposition. The Court granted both the Motion for Leave to file a late Motion to Compel and the underlying Motion to Compel, finding that the Plaintiff's designated witness failed to adequately prepare or testify on behalf of the organization regarding designated topics. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to educate and prepare a proper corporate designee for a two-hour supplemental deposition within twenty days.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether good cause supported allowing Defendants and Intervenors to file a motion to compel after the deadline in the Docket Control Order.
- Whether Plaintiff was required to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness educated and prepared to testify about information known or reasonably available to Plaintiff concerning the designated topics.
- Whether a corporate Rule 30(b)(6) witness could avoid factual questions merely because the questions related to an expert's opinions or because the information appeared in written discovery and infringement contentions.
Holdings
- Good cause existed to permit Defendants and Intervenors to file and the Court to consider the late motion to compel.
- A party that designates a Rule 30(b)(6) witness must educate and prepare the witness to testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization concerning the designated topics; the witness cannot avoid factual questions by asserting personal lack of knowledge, pointing to written discovery, or referring the examiner to an expert.
- The motion to compel was granted, and Plaintiff was ordered to adequately educate and prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for a two-hour supplemental deposition limited to the disputed portions of Topics 18, 27, 45, 49, and 52.
Key quotations
“A 30(b)(6) witness does not testify simply to his or her personal knowledge. A 30(b)(6) witness testifies on behalf of an organization, and the witness “must testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization.”” (III.B)
“To be clear, the Court does not find that Mr. Sharma was required to answer questions asking for an expert opinion. However, he was required to provide testimony regarding the Plaintiff's contentions and the factual bases supporting those contentions.” (III.B)
“Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff shall adequately educate and prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for a two hour supplemental deposition limited to the aspects of Topic Nos. 18, 27, 45, 49, and 52 at issue in the MTC.” (IV)
Factual background
Plaintiff brought a patent-infringement action involving four asserted United States patents. Defendants and Intervenors served a Rule 30(b)(6) notice seeking testimony about the asserted patents, accused products, discovery responses, infringement contentions, and the factual basis for Plaintiff's positions, including its exceptional-case allegation. Plaintiff designated its managing director and only witness, Deepak Sharma, but Sharma repeatedly stated that he was not the witness for particular questions, referred examiners to a technical expert, or directed them to written discovery and infringement contentions.
Procedural history
Active Wireless Technologies LLC filed a patent-infringement complaint on May 31, 2023. The Court's amended Docket Control Order set October 22, 2024 as the deadline to complete fact discovery and file motions to compel. After Plaintiff's designated Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Deepak Sharma, repeatedly declined to answer questions concerning designated topics or referred the examiners to written contentions and interrogatories, Defendants and Intervenors sought leave to file a late motion to compel. The Court granted leave and granted the motion to compel, ordering a limited supplemental deposition.
Remand instructions
No remand. Plaintiff must adequately educate and prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for a two-hour supplemental deposition limited to the aspects of Topics 18, 27, 45, 49, and 52 at issue in the motion to compel, to occur within twenty days of entry of the order.