Briana Leakas v. Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute concerning the plaintiffs’ proposed depositions of Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC (MBMH) and Michaels Management Services, LLC (Michaels). The plaintiffs served identical notices under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which governs depositions of corporations and other organizations. The notices identified nine subjects.

MBMH and Michaels agreed to designate witnesses for topics 1 through 6. They objected to topics 7 through 9, which concerned maintenance requests, mold, mildew, water intrusion, and remediation efforts at the plaintiffs’ prior residence at 575 Michelson Road, Monterey, California. The defendants argued that Teresa Watkins, a former employee, was the only person who could testify about those subjects. The plaintiffs sought testimony that would bind MBMH and Michaels as organizations.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that when a Rule 30(b)(6) notice describes the matters for examination with reasonable particularity, the organization must designate one or more people to testify about information known or reasonably available to it. An organization may not refuse to provide responsive testimony merely because another person is a better source of information or has more personal knowledge.

The organization also does not have to produce the person with the best personal knowledge. It must produce a representative whose testimony will be binding on the organization. If no current employee has personal knowledge, the organization must prepare a representative using documents, former employees, or other reasonably available sources.

The defendants did not dispute that the plaintiffs had described the deposition subjects with reasonable particularity. The court therefore concluded that MBMH and Michaels had to identify and prepare representatives to testify about all nine topics, including topics 7 through 9.

Order

The court ordered MBMH and Michaels to produce their designated representatives to testify about all topics in the plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) notices within 30 days, unless the parties agreed otherwise. The court also ordered defense counsel to disclose when representatives were available so the depositions could be scheduled without further delay. This order resolved a discovery dispute and did not decide the underlying claims.