Thompson v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:23-cv-00140
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Thompson v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Judge Westmore ordered a deposition but rejected demands about its timing and witness identity.
Kevin M. Thompson and National Railroad Passenger Corporation, particularly their participation in the defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
What happened
Kevin M. Thompson and National Railroad Passenger Corporation filed a joint discovery letter about the corporation’s organizational deposition. Thompson asked the court to require the deposition before an October 4, 2024 settlement conference and to require the corporation to identify its witness beforehand.
The court ordered the corporation to appear for a properly noticed deposition, but said it was not feasible to require the deposition before the settlement conference. The court also said the corporation did not have to identify its witness in advance, although it expected both sides to cooperate and act professionally.
Judge Kandis Westmore further explained that the corporation generally must answer questions in the deposition despite objections about relevance or other issues, unless a good-faith privilege objection applies. The court declined to review exhibits exceeding the court’s page limit and stated that the order disposed of the discovery letter.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 4:23-cv-00140
- Kandis Westmore
- Oct. 1, 2024
Background
The parties submitted a joint discovery letter concerning the defendant’s deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows a party to question an organization through a witness designated to testify about listed topics. Thompson had noticed the deposition for September 12, 2024. The defendant served a supplemental objection on September 11 and stated that it would not appear. The defendant also objected to the number of deposition categories and to specific categories.
The court first declined to review nearly 50 pages of exhibits attached to a separate discovery letter that had already been terminated, noting that the judge’s standing order allowed the parties to attach only 12 pages of exhibits.
Rulings
The court ordered the defendant to appear at a properly noticed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. It relied on Rule 37(d)(2), which provides that failure to appear for a properly noticed deposition is not excused merely because the requested discovery is the subject of a protective-order issue. Because the discovery letter was filed less than two weeks before the settlement conference, the court did not find it feasible to require that the deposition occur before the conference.
The court did not require the defendant to tell Thompson beforehand who would testify. It explained that Rule 30(b)(6)’s requirement that an organization designate a witness does not itself require advance disclosure of that person’s identity. The court nevertheless expected the parties to cooperate, conduct discovery efficiently, and avoid gamesmanship.
The court also addressed the disputed deposition categories. It found that the categories did not appear insufficiently specific and explained that objections based on possible irrelevance, a non-lawyer’s legal opinion, or possible later exclusion generally were not proper reasons to refuse to answer. The defendant could state an objection on the record but generally had to answer to the best of its ability. A good-faith objection based on attorney-client privilege was permitted.
Finally, the court did not issue a separate instruction concerning questions about “long documents.” It stated that, if the defendant believed such documents were inappropriate, it could object and move on rather than terminate the deposition. The order disposed of Docket No. 52.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.