49. Is the corporation likely to prevent the deposition from occurring?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 30 allows any party to take the oral testimony of any person thought to have information within the scope of discovery by asking oral questions. This process is called a deposition.

Under FRCP 30(b)(6), when the named party is a corporation, «[i]n its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination. The named organization must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify. Before or promptly after the notice or subpoena is served, the serving party and the organization must confer in good faith about the matters for examination.»

A party may sometimes use discovery in such a way as to harass his or her adversaries. When this occurs, the opposing party may simply object to a particular request. An objection may be raised to a discovery request in the same way that a question at trial may be objected to.

The opposing party may seek a judicial order called a «protective order,» pursuant to FRCP 26(c). Such a protective order generally deals with a much broader range of materials. A protective order may be issued to prohibit an entire line of questioning or the examination of a particular witness. If an FRCP 26(c) protective order is sought for a deposition, the order is generally pursued before the deposition is conducted.

B is correct. This was an FRCP 30(b) deposition named the corporation, as an organization, but was served on the president. FRCP 30(b) requires that the notice «describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination.» Here, the executive did not describe the matters to be covered in the deposition to allow the corporation to be on notice regarding the facts. Therefore, the corporation's counsel should object to the executive's deposition notice and move for a protective order under FRCP 26(c), excusing the corporation, including the president, from appearing for her deposition.

A is incorrect. This choice states the correct conclusion but the incorrect legal reasoning. Officers of a corporate party do not need to be subpoenaed; they may be summoned for a deposition by notice. Moreover, a person who is served with notice of a deposition does not have to be a named party, but may simply be a witness. Here, it is the lack of any particularity in the notice that may be the basis for avoiding the deposition, not the absence of a subpoena.

C is incorrect. Under the FRCP, a requesting party can name an organization, state the matters to be covered, and then allow the organization to designate which individual should testify. It is of no consequence who the corporation designates to testify. The outcome-determinative issue here is the absence of a description on the notice regarding the matters of examination, as explained above.

D is incorrect. Regardless of whether the president has knowledge of material facts, she is not the named deponent, the corporation is, and the notice failed to have the necessary description of the matters of examination.