The District Court for the Western District of Virginia recently issued a ruling that clarifies a party's obligation to provide a knowlegable and prepared corporate designee in resposne to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Below is a brief summary of this ruling.

Litigation

Spicer v. Universal Forest Products, Civil Civil Action No. 7:07cv462, 2008 WL 4455854, 1 (W.D.Va. Oct. 1, 2008)- In what may prove to be a significant memorandum opinion, Judge Michael J. Urbanski struck an employer’s defense of financial necessity because of its failure to designate an informed and sufficiently prepared deposition witness. The court’s decision to impose such a harsh sanction was influenced by the defendant employer’s repeated failure to provide appropriate responses to several of the plaintiff employee’s discovery requests. For example, the defendant employer failed to identify at least three employees with significantly knowledge about the facts of the case. Additionally, the defendant employer failed to produce hundreds of pages of relevant documentation obtained from various third parties. Finally, the defendant employer repeatedly produced belated discovery responses.

The defendant employer sought to justify its failure to provide and prepare a knowledgeable corporate designee by contending that the subject matter of the deposition’s inquiry was duplicative. However, the court rejected this explanation, noting that though repetitive discovery request are discouraged by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is authorized to ask multiple deponents the same questions.

In addition to striking the employer defendant’s defenses, the court awarded the plaintiff employee costs and fees associated with deposing the deficient corporate designee, seeking more complete discovery responses, and preparing its sanctions request.