Palmer v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha

Background

This maritime personal-injury case concerns William Palmer’s fall through an open hatch on a ship owned by Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, also called NYK Line. At the time, Palmer was employed by Pacific Crane Maintenance Company, LLC (PCMC), which conducted its own investigation of the accident. NYK Line sought discovery from PCMC about that investigation.

On July 17, 2025, NYK Line and PCMC submitted a joint discovery letter. NYK Line sought to compel PCMC to produce Scott Baker again as PCMC’s organizational witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), covering 14 noticed topics. NYK Line argued that Baker had not been adequately prepared. PCMC argued that Baker had been prepared as required.

Rule 30(b)(6) standard

Under Rule 30(b)(6), the requesting party must describe the examination topics with reasonable particularity, and the organization must designate a witness to testify about information known or reasonably available to it. The witness speaks for the organization, not merely from personal knowledge. The organization must prepare the witness with information available from sources such as documents, former employees, and other testimony. The parties must also confer in good faith about the deposition’s scope.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the joint letter did not sufficiently address important issues. NYK Line’s primary argument was that Baker had failed to review files belonging to PCMC employee Andrew Lorenzana. NYK Line suggested that Lorenzana had investigated the accident and had possessed relevant files. PCMC asserted that Lorenzana had not investigated the accident, that Jerry Gatine, Davis Tsen, and Brian Rau had conducted the investigation, and that Baker had reviewed the relevant investigation documents.

The court stated that the record did not clarify Lorenzana’s role or whether he had relevant files. Because NYK Line was seeking the discovery, it had to explain, with supporting evidence, why Lorenzana had relevant files that Baker did not review. NYK Line also had to identify which deposition topics required Baker to review those files and explain why. The court noted that inadequate preparation on one topic would not automatically justify reopening the deposition on every topic.

The court also found NYK Line’s other arguments too vague. A Rule 30(b)(6) witness need not have first-hand knowledge, and reviewing previously produced documents can be appropriate preparation. NYK Line did not identify a specific question Baker could not answer that he would have answered with reasonable preparation. It also did not address PCMC’s objections concerning documents outside PCMC’s possession, custody, or control; topics about which PCMC said no accident witnesses existed; and a topic PCMC claimed was protected by attorney-client privilege.

Ruling and required next steps

The court denied the joint discovery letter without prejudice. It ordered NYK Line and PCMC to meet and confer fully about the identified issues. If they could not resolve the dispute, they were required to file a new, standalone five-page joint discovery letter by August 5, 2025. The new letter had to address the relevant topics, include competent supporting evidence such as a sworn declaration, and stand on its own without incorporating another document.