John D. Read, et al. v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.

Summary

The court addresses a discovery dispute concerning the scope and timing of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in an asbestos-related mesothelioma action. It cancels the scheduled deposition unless the parties agree to proceed on nine topics and establishes a structured process for narrowing topics, briefing proportionality issues, and rescheduling the deposition.

Holdings

1. A Rule 30(b)(6) organization must prepare its designated witnesses to provide knowledgeable and binding answers, which requires sufficiently particularized topics and reasonable time to prepare. On the record presented, Bath Ironworks could not reasonably prepare witnesses for seventy-three topics within five days.
2. The parties must follow the court-ordered chart, meet-and-confer, briefing, and rescheduling process, including identifying the topics, preparation time, alternative discovery mechanisms, proposed deposition dates, and legal arguments.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bath Ironworks could reasonably prepare Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses for a deposition covering seventy-three topics on five days' notice.
2. What process should govern resolution of the parties' dispute over the scope, proportionality, and scheduling of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

Disposition

other