Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank

Background

The plaintiffs noticed a deposition of Umpqua Bank under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows an organization to designate one or more witnesses to testify about topics identified in the deposition notice. Umpqua selected three witnesses.

The plaintiffs asked the witnesses some questions about the noticed organizational topics and other questions that required them to testify based on their personal knowledge. The court treated this as a hybrid deposition: one deposition of Umpqua Bank and separate depositions of the three individual witnesses.

Deposition limit

The court explained that a 30(b)(6) deposition generally counts as one deposition, even when an organization designates multiple witnesses. But when witnesses are also questioned outside the noticed topics in their individual capacities, counting the session as only one deposition could allow a party to evade court-imposed limits. The court therefore counted the session as four depositions.

The plaintiffs had also taken four other depositions and scheduled two more. Including the hybrid deposition, those depositions brought the plaintiffs to the ten-deposition limit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A). The limit can be changed if a party makes a specific showing that additional depositions are needed.

Ruling

The plaintiffs identified two more individuals and one organization they wanted to depose, which would have brought their total to thirteen. The court found that they had not explained specifically why those additional depositions were needed. Judge Alex G. Tse therefore denied the request to take the three additional depositions, without prejudice. The order says the plaintiffs may return to court and request permission if they later explain their need for the depositions with particularity.