McGuireWoods Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product Case Summary Database

Chapter: 58.202

Case Name: Alfaro v. City of San Diego, Case No. 3:17-cv-00046-H-KSC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163512 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018)

(criticizing defendant's boilerplate interrogatory objections; "'The City also objects to this interrogatory as seeking information protected as attorney-client privileged and attorney work-product. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the City responds: . . . .'"; "The manner in which defendant deploys boilerplate objections demonstrates that they are without substance. Indeed, for every interrogatory particularized response provided, defendant first made a boilerplate objection. The Court recognizes the paragraph is an oft used tactic to avoid waiver of some future objection. But it also needlessly complicated the dispute, causing plaintiffs to object to language in the boilerplate paragraph that never constituted the true basis for the defendant's objection. The purpose of requiring specific and particularized objections is to ensure clear communication between the parties and avoid disputes like the one now before the Court."; ". . . are contention interrogatories seeking 'all facts' supporting the potential assertion by defendants (1) that Alfaro 'was not entitled to overtime pay while working for SDFD as an ERO', and (2) that Alfaro 'engaged in 'fire suppression activities' while working for SDFD as an ERO.'. . . A contention interrogatory 'should not require the answering party to provide a narrative account of its case.'. . . Courts 'will generally find [contention interrogatories] overly broad and unduly burdensome on their face to the extent they ask for 'every fact' [or 'all facts'] which support[] identified allegations or defenses.'. . . 'Interrogatories may, however, properly ask for the 'principal or material' facts which support an allegation or defense.'. . . On this basis alone, the Court agrees with defendants . . . and finds that Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 are overly broad and unduly burdensome as worded and must be limited to the principal, or material, facts that support plaintiffs' claims or defendant's defense.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2018-09-21	Federal	CA

Comment:

Key Case

Chapter: 58.202

Case Name: Alheid v. Target Corp., No. 16 Civ. 6980 (PGG) (HBP), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138922 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2017)

November 15, 2017 (PRIVILEGE POINT)

"Rule 30(b)(6) Involves Subtle Issues"

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), corporations must designate and educate one or more witnesses to answer deposition questions based on the corporation's collective knowledge. Such depositions raise obvious privilege issues, because (1) lawyers inevitably help gather the corporation's facts and relay those to the Rule 30(b)(6) witness; and (2) the privilege can protect some of the witness's education session, but not the historical facts.

In Alheid v. Target Corp., No. 16 Civ. 6980 (PGG) (HBP), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138922 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2017), Magistrate Judge Pitman rejected defendants' argument that the personal injury plaintiff should have to depose other knowledgeable Target employees before requiring Target to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. The court noted that plaintiff's "30(b)(6) notice does not seek defendants' contentions or their work product." Id. at *8. In other words, plaintiff's "notice does not seek to have defendants identify the facts that support their contentions, rather it seeks only facts." Id. The court did not fully explain where to draw that line.

Given the predictable and universal role lawyers play in gathering facts and educating Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, one would think that every such deposition would trigger a privilege dispute. Given the surprising lack of case law on these and other subtle Rule 30(b)(6) issues, plaintiffs' and defendants' lawyers apparently muddle through most Rule 30(b)(6) depositions without seeking courts' intervention.

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-08-29	Federal	NY

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.202

Case Name: Alexander v. BF Labs Inc., Case No. 14-2159-KHV, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94536 (D. Kan. July 21, 2015)

("In the context of an objection to an interrogatory, this court has held that unless the interrogatory (1) specifically inquires into an attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories, or (2) asks for the content of a document protectable as work product, it's inappropriate to raise a work product objection. The work product doctrine also doesn't protect 'facts concerning the creation of work product or facts contained within work product.'"; "The court finds that plaintiffs' work product objection in this case is frivolous. The interrogatories in question do not specifically request nor inquire into the mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories of plaintiffs' counsel. Nor do the document requests ask for any documents or materials that plaintiffs have shown to be protected by work product. Rather, these discovery requests unremarkably require plaintiffs to identify the facts and documents supporting contentions made in their complaint. Plaintiffs have failed to show that answering these interrogatories or requests for production would reveal the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of their counsel.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-07-21	Federal	KS

Chapter: 58.202

Case Name: Alexander v. BF Labs Inc., Case No. 14-2159-KHV, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94536 (D. Kan. July 21, 2015)

("Although Rule 33(a)(2) does permit the court to delay the obligation to respond to contention interrogatories until other designated discovery has been completed, plaintiffs' brief is conspicuously devoid of any facts, or any relevant authority, supporting their assertion that they cannot presently respond fully. The court finds no persuasive reason in the record for plaintiffs to defer their answers to their discovery responses. Plaintiffs should answer these interrogatories now as fully as they can, keeping in mind their continuing obligation to supplement their discovery responses as additional or different information becomes available.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-07-21	Federal	KS

Chapter: 58.202

Case Name: Lawrence v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., Case No.: 1:14-cv-00524 JLT, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78024 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2015)

(explaining that a plaintiff suing a former employer for violation of California's overtime wages law could not seek defendant's work product through contention interrogatory such as the following: "'Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 3. Please state all facts on which defendant SLB based the classification of Plaintiff Kenneth Lawrence as exempt pursuant to the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Orders (4-2001 and/or 16-2001) after November, 2001.'"; "On its face, the Court agrees the interrogatory may invade the attorney work product privilege. Had Plaintiff not intended to invade this privilege, he would not have referenced California law or the Wage Orders. As worded, the interrogatories ask, in essence, 'Why do you think that the facts, as you knew them, when applied to California Law and the Wage Orders, meant that Field Engineers/Field Specialists/Plaintiff were properly classified as exempt?' However, the Court was informed at the hearing that Defendant is currently unaware of any relevant work product and, on based upon the breadth of the request, Defendant has not produced a privilege log. Thus, at this time, the objection is not well-taken and is OVERRULED."; "Here, the Court concludes that requiring a response to the unobjectionable part of the interrogatories would significantly advance the litigation since these facts go to the very heart of the key issues raised in this litigation. Likewise, the Court can see no undue burden in requiring a response or any prejudice that would result. . . . Thus, when the objectionable material is carved away, there remains a permissible question as to each Interrogatory which should be answered."; "As to Interrogatory No. 1, the Court ORDERS Defendant to respond to the clarified and narrowed request which reads, 'State the facts that explain why Defendant determined Plaintiff's position, 'Field Engineer,' was exempt. The interrogatory is limited to the period of time that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.'"; "As to Interrogatory No. 2, the Court ORDERS Defendant to respond to the clarified and narrowed request which reads, 'State the facts that explain why Defendant determined the position, 'Field Specialist,' was exempt. The interrogatory is limited to the period of time that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.'"; "As to Interrogatory No. 3, the Court ORDERS Defendant to respond to the clarified and narrowed request which reads, 'State the facts that explain why Defendant determined Plaintiff's position, while he was employed by Defendant, was classified as exempt.'")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-06-16	Federal	CA

Chapter: 58.202

**Case Name: Lawrence v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-00524 JLT, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78024, at *3-6 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2015)**

August 12, 2015 (PRIVILEGE POINT)

"When Do Contention Interrogatories Impermissibly Seek Protected Work Product?"

Under the Federal Rules and parallel state rules, litigants may use what are called "contention interrogatories" to explore adversaries' factual support for their legal contentions. Courts normally regulate the timing of those, generally prohibiting litigants from using that tactic too early in the discovery process. This timing issue highlights the "intensely practical" nature of the work product doctrine — in contrast to the more abstract and absolute attorney-client privilege.

In Lawrence v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-00524 JLT, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78024, at *3-6 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2015), plaintiff submitted contention interrogatories asking defendant to "state all facts" on which the defendant based certain employee classifications pursuant to the California Labor Code and other regulations. The court agreed with defendant that "the interrogatory may invade the attorney work product privilege" — noting that "[h]ad Plaintiff not intended to invade this privilege, he would not have referenced California law or the Wage Orders." Id. At *11. But the court concluded that "when the objectionable material is carved away, there remains a permissible question." Id. At *14. The court therefore ordered defendant to provide the facts underlying its employee classification of plaintiff's job position (with no reference to the law).

Although litigants ultimately must explain the factual basis for their legal contentions, they should be on the lookout for contention interrogatories that impermissibly seek their work product before applicable rules, court orders, or the trial process require the disclosure.

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-06-16	Federal	CA

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.202

Case Name: Christison v. Biogen Idec, Case No. 2:11-cv-01140-DN-DBP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104232 (D. Utah July 29, 2014)

(ordering plaintiff to answer contention interrogatories; "Similarly, Defendants persuasively argue that Plaintiff must answer Defendant Elan's contention interrogatories because such interrogatories merely serve 'to narrow and define issues for trial and to enable the propounding party to determine the proof required to rebut the respondent's position.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2014-07-29	Federal	UT

Chapter: 58.202

**Case Name: Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 10 Civ. 6950 (AT) (JCF), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173986, at 2-3, 4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2013)**

(within an opinion by Magistrate Judge James Francis, holding that defendant's contention interrogatories were too broad; "Local Civil Rule 33.3(c) provides that '[a]t the conclusion of other discovery, and at least 30 days prior to the discovery cut-off date, interrogatories seeking the claims and contentions of the opposing party may be served unless the Court has ordered otherwise.' Where, as here, certain discovery has been directed specifically to the issue of class certification, the triggering date for contention interrogatories directed to class certification is logically the close of class discovery, not the completion of all discovery, which will come well after the class motion has been decided and after any interrogatories related to class issues would have been rendered superfluous. Therefore, the defendants' interrogatories are neither premature nor contrary to the local rules."; "The purpose of contention interrogatories is not to require the adversary to regurgitate information disclosed during discovery or preview the record that will be created at trial (or, as in this case, on a motion for class certification).")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-12-11	Federal	NY	B 5/14

Chapter: 58.202

**Case Name: Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 10 Civ. 6950 (AT) (JCF), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173986, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2013)**

(within an opinion by Magistrate Judge James Francis, holding that defendant's contention interrogatories were too broad"Finally, the plaintiffs' assertion of work product protection is without merit. 'There are many legitimate ways in which an attorney's thoughts and strategy may be revealed, e.g., in pleadings, interrogatory answers, requests for admissions, responses to contention interrogatories and pre-trial orders. In those contexts, the work product privilege affords little or no protection.'" (citation omitted))

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-12-11	Federal	NY	B 5/14

Chapter: 58.202

Case Name: Skibinski v. Lunger, 74 Va. Cir. 428, 431, 432, 420 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2008)

(addressing a discovery issue arising from plaintiff home purchaser's lawsuit against defendant home sellers, based on defendants' alleged failure to disclose defects in the house in violation of various zoning requirements; noting that plaintiffs had spoken to the contractor who built the defective addition on the plaintiffs' home and who admitted to plaintiffs that he had advised defendants of the defect; noting that plaintiffs had not identified the contract in responding to interrogatories asking plaintiffs for the identity of persons with knowledge of relevant facts and asking plaintiffs to "'[i]dentify the factual basis'" for their contention that the defendants were aware of the defects (citation omitted); acknowledging that plaintiffs had filed a general objection to the interrogatories on the basis of "attorney work product" and concluding the interrogatories were not objectionable; "If Defendant William Lunger's interrogatories had requested the identification of witnesses the Plaintiffs intended to call at trial, attorney work product would have been a colorable objection. But simply seeking the identification and knowledge of all witnesses who had knowledge of the facts of the case is not."; rejecting plaintiffs' argument that "there is no prejudice to the Defendants, since they have known of Hudlow's existence since 1990 and have had equal access to him, and further, that all of the information about Hudlow has now been discovered more than six months before trial"; declining to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, but ordering plaintiffs to pay attorneys' fees relating to the issue) [Alper, J.]

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2008-01-01	State	VA	B 3/09; n

Chapter: 58.202

Case Name: Burnett v. Brown, No. CL99-8045,Va. Laws. Wkly. 000-8-246 (Va. Cir. Ct. June 6, 2000)

(refusing to compel a party to answer contention interrogatories asking defendant to list all facts supporting any contention that the plaintiff's injuries were not the result of the accident at issue; described and quoted as follows in Virginia Lawyers Weekly's Aug. 7, 2000, opinion digest: "In the case at bar, both plaintiff and defendant have equal access to the documents in question, plaintiff's medical records and bills. Indeed, plaintiff has easier access to her own medical records than defendant. If plaintiff does not have those records it is more convenient and less burdensome that she obtain them from the hospital rather than the defendant. Further, plaintiff has had ample opportunity to get those documents. Here, what is placed in question by the disputed interrogatory is any injury which defendant believes did not result or only partially resulted from the accident. Plaintiff asks for specific events or incidents that had previously caused the injuries the defendant deems unrelated. This obviously goes to the plaintiff's personal and medical history, both of which are available to plaintiff. Plaintiff is easily able to determine what injuries she claims are a result of the car accident and what potential past events or injuries are related enough that defendant might use them in preparing the defense. When plaintiff asks defendant for "the basis of this contention;' that any or all of the injuries claimed by plaintiff are not the results of the accident, the plaintiff is asking for the theory on which defendant is resting that part of the defense. The reasons why defendant contends that injuries are not the result of the accident are clearly protected from discovery. Further, the choice of what part of the documents to use is just that: a choice. It is thus legal strategy. Plaintiff should work to determine what the most convincing defense arguments will be from the documents at hand and prepare accordingly. Plaintiff has not shown good cause why the information she seeks cannot be obtained without undue hardship. The facts and events giving rise to a possible defense theory that not all the injuries were caused by the accident are already in the hands of the plaintiff. Those facts that are not can easily be obtained elsewhere. The information plaintiff truly seeks is what specific facts the defense plans to use out of the larger set of facts that both sides already possess. The defendant is not required to explain what he intends to strategically pick out of those materials.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2000-06-06	State	VA	B 3/16

Chapter: 58.203

Case Name: Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-236-Orl-40TBS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97955 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2018)

(ordering defendant to identify or log documents supporting it factual contentions; "Local Access contends that Peerless cannot hide behind the work product doctrine or attorney client privilege to withhold from discovery the documents that it contends support its claims and defenses. The Court agrees."; "Although Peerless argues that 'The selection and compilation by Peerless's counsel of the key documents -- from those that were already produced to Local Access -- that were used to support the allegations stated in its Amended Counterclaims would reveal strategies and opinions regarding the case,' the Court finds this conclusory statement unconvincing. Nor does the Court find the Sporck doctrine relied upon by Peerless to be applicable here.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2018-06-12	Federal	FL

Comment:

Key Case

Chapter: 58.203

Case Name: In re MGM Mirage Securities Litig., Case No. 2:09-cv-1558-GMN-VCF, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165486 (D. Nev. Nov. 25, 2014)

("[T]he court finds as a matter of law that MGM's contention interrogatories are not premature, as the Lead Plaintiffs' contend. Rule 33 does not limit when contention interrogatories may be propounded. FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(2)."; "The Lead Plaintiffs argue that the court should excuse the Lead Plaintiffs from answering MGM's contention interrogatories because discovery is substantially incomplete and the Lead Plaintiffs are not prepared to answer. . . . A responding party is not 'irrevocably bound' to its answers. . . . Responding parties must simply do their best, move on, and supplement as required."; "The court may not depart from this procedure by adding a new rule -- (viz., that contention interrogatories should not be propounded until the end of discovery) -- because the effects of doing so seem desirable.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2014-11-25	Federal	NV

Chapter: 58.203

**Case Name: Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co. v. Davis, Case No. 1:11-cv-0851, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5253, at *16-17 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2013)**

(holding that a law firm sued for malpractice should not have sought documents from the former client's other law firms when those documents were generally available from the client itself; "Of greater concern to the Court is the Firm's conduct in issuing a subpoena to Baker & Hostetler for documents available from, and already provided in large part by, Mr. Davis. Such conduct seems at odds with the spirit of the federal rules relating to discovery. Further, given the conduct of counsel to date as detailed in the Court's previous orders, the Court finds this a close case for sanctions. However, the Court declines to impose sanctions at this time but cautions counsel that it may well do so in the future.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-01-14	Federal	OH	B 7/13

Chapter: 58.301

**Case Name: Chandola v. Seattle Hous. Auth., Case No. C13-557 RSM, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132193, at *12-13 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2014)**

("[T]he Court agrees with Defendants that aspects of the decision to designate Mr. Fearn as a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, including the identity of the designators and their motivations, is protected by attorney-client privilege. This decision took place within the course of this litigation, entrenches on confidential communications between SHA and its legal counsel, and has indiscernible relevance to the facts underlying this case. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's request to compel SHA to answer questions regarding Mr. Fearn's designation.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2014-09-19	Federal	WA

Chapter: 58.301

Case Name: Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. j2 Global, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-03434-RMW (PSG), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37027 (N.D. Cal. March 20, 2014)

("As a deponent designated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), Morosoff had a duty to do more than rely on his memory. He had a duty to investigate. To remedy this situation, no later than March 27, 2014, IGC may take an additional 4 hours of deposition on the designated topics. To the extent any information discovered is relevant to the j2's pending summary judgment motion, IGC may request leave of Judge Whyte to supplement the record.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2014-03-20	Federal	CA

Chapter: 58.303

Case Name: A.R. v. Dudek; United States v. Florida, Case No. 12-60460-CIV-ZLOCH/HUNT, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6426 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2015)

(holding that there was no per se prohibition on a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the government)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-01-15	Federal	FL

Chapter: 58.303

**Case Name: SEC v. Kovzan, Case No. 11-2017-JWL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23637, at 6, 6-7 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2013)**

(ordering the government to produce witnesses for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; "On its face, the deposition notice does not seek the deposition of opposing counsel. The SEC, however, argues that a number of topics seek the judgment and assessments of the SEC's attorneys in responding to discovery and articulating the factual basis for the SEC's clams in this case. The SEC argues that other topics essentially require the SEC to articulate and explain the law, and the SEC has cited several cases in which courts have prohibited the depositions of governmental agencies. First, there is no blanket rule prohibiting the deposition of a governmental agency in an action such as this one. The court acknowledges that some judges, in their discretion, have found it appropriate to prohibit Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of governmental agencies lacking any first-hand knowledge of the facts at issue. This line of cases, however, does not relieve the SEC of its obligation to come forward with a particular and specific demonstration of fact that would justify the entry of a protective order -- particularly when Rule 30(b)(6) expressly allows for the depositions of governmental agencies."; "Second, Rule 30(b)(6) deponents need not have independent personal knowledge of the deposition topics. The rule requires deponents 'to testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization.' 'In other words, personal knowledge of the designated subject matter by the selected deponent is of no consequence.' Thus, a party is not permitted to undermine the rule by suggesting it has no available witnesses with direct knowledge of the deposition topics." (citations and footnote omitted)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-02-21	Federal	KS	B 3/14

Chapter: 58.303

**Case Name: Sloan Valve Co. v. Zurn Indus., No. 10 C 204, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161749, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2012)**

("Zurn's Rule 30(b)(6) notice improperly seeks testimony implicating the mental impressions and legal theories of the trial counsel who drafted them.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2012-11-13	Federal	IL	B 7/13

Chapter: 58.303

**Case Name: Sloan Valve Co. v. Zurn Indus., No. 10 C 204, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161749, at *6-7 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2012)**

("[T]he Court would not require Sloan to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify about the infringement contentions. First, Zurn has not shown that it needs to obtain information specifically from an attorney. Second, Zurn cannot show any exceptional circumstances justifying discovery of the 'facts known or opinions held by' Sloan's consulting experts who conducted the tests at issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D)(ii).")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2012-11-13	Federal	IL	B 7/13

Chapter: 58.304

Case Name: Alheid v. Target Corp., No. 16 Civ. 6980 (PGG) (HBP), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138922 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2017)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-08-29	Federal	NY

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.304

**Case Name: Garcia v. Completely Kids, No. 8:14CV119, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5356, at 9, 9 10 (D. Neb. Jan. 15, 2016)**

(finding that an employer defendant did not impliedly waive privilege protection, although the evidence showed that the decision-maker consulted with a lawyer before firing the plaintiff; noting that the employer's Rule 30(b)(6) representative mentioned the consultation in response to a leading question; "As to the good faith defense, Parker, as the 30(b)(6) representative for Completely kids [sic], provided a long explanation for the basis of defendant's good faith defense, mentioning consultation with counsel in response to only one leading question."; "There is nothing of record stating Defendant relied on counsel in deciding whether to terminate, discriminate, or retaliate against Plaintiff. At most, Defendant testified that it relied on defense counsel regarding the necessary procedural steps for termination under Defendant's employee policies and plans. Plaintiff is not pursuing an action for breach of company policies. As such, the record fails to show Defendant asserted reliance on an attorney's advice regarding any 'element of a claim or defense' at issue. Under the facts presented, and as to the claims alleged in this case, Defendant is not relying on the advice of counsel such that it would be unfair and inconsistent to permit Defendant to retain the privilege. In accordance with the high protection afforded attorney-client communications, and the caution to be exercised in finding any implied waiver, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Protective Order . . . is granted.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2016-01-15	Federal	NE	B 7/16

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.304

Case Name: In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No 1917,Master Case No 3:07cv05944SC,No 13cv01173; No 13cv05724; No 13cv05261; No 13cv05264; No 13cv05727; No 13cv05726; No 13cv05723; No 13cv05725; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147413 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015)

(analyzing defendant's duty to designate and educate a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition witness; rejecting plaintiffs' motion to compel defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) witness to review witness interview memoranda created during an internal corporate investigation -- because the facts contained in such memoranda inevitably intertwined with the defendant's lawyer's opinion; "From these authorities, the undersigned derives the following conclusions: (1) the DAPs' [Direct Action Plaintiffs] motion should be analyzed under the work-product doctrine, not the attorney-client privilege; (2) the work product doctrine forecloses disclosure of the non-privileged facts in Thomson's internal investigation memoranda if the attorneys' mental impressions and strategy cannot reasonably be separated from the underlying non-privileged facts; (3) a Rule 30(b)(6) witness educated on the internal investigation materials may be deposed without invasion of the attorney work-product unless the work-product so permeates the materials making invasion inevitable; and (4) the DAPs should be denied access to the non-privileged facts in the internal investigation memoranda if the DAPs have had access to these facts from other sources. . . . The Upjohn v United States, 449 U.S. 383, 101 S. Ct. 677, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1981), Hickman, Linerboard and Kellogg Brown & Root decisions are analogous and require denial of the DAPs' motion to compel. In particular, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition requiring the corporate designee to prepare by reading all of Thomson's outside counsels' interview memoranda and testifying to the underlying facts would violate the protection afforded to 'core' or 'opinion' work product. . . . Based on this review, the undersigned finds that: (1) the interview memoranda so intertwine facts and attorney mental impressions that the facts cannot be readily separated from the attorney impressions; (2) the facts reported in the interview memoranda are subject to 'grave dangers of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness' due to faulty memory or transcription, noted in Hickman v Taylor (329 US at 512-513) and (3) requiring a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee to study the interview memoranda and attempt to extract underlying 'facts' known to the corporation would be an exceedingly time-consuming and problematic undertaking. In light of the extensive and intertwined attorney thoughts and mental impressions contained in the interview memoranda, the undersigned concludes that the memoranda constitute primarily 'core' or 'opinion' work product. To the extent there are 'facts' reported, it appears that these 'facts' reflect the filter of the attorney transcriber of these interview memoranda."; "The undersigned finds that: (1) Thomson's Rule 30(b)(6) witness was adequately prepared, having spent over 100 hours preparing for the deposition, which the DAPs do not contest; (2) the DAPs have deposed ten Thomson current or former employees from whom facts pertinent to Thomson's conduct were obtained or could have been obtained; (3) the DAPs have thus had the opportunity to obtain the information that appears in the internal investigation materials from other non-privileged sources, including knowledgeable individuals whose depositions have been taken or could have been taken as well as Thomson's document productions; and (4) the DAPs have not provided reasons why any additional information that appears in the internal investigation materials is crucial to their case.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-10-05	Federal	CA

Chapter: 58.304

**Case Name: In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Master Case No. 3:07-cv-05944SC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147413, at *219-20 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015)**

December 16, 2015 (PRIVILEGE POINT)

"Court Analyzes Rule 30(b)(6) Witness's Preparation Duties"

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), an entity must prepare a designated witness to testify about specified topics. This type of deposition implicates several competing principles, because (1) such witnesses must provide historical facts, which are never privileged; and (2) those witnesses almost invariably learn such historical facts during deposition preparation sessions with the company's lawyer, which normally deserve privilege and work product doctrine protection.

In In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, plaintiffs sought to compel a defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify about its outside lawyers' internal investigation into pertinent facts — insisting that the "corporate designee must be prepared to testify about factual information transmitted to or from counsel." Master Case No. 3:07-cv-05944SC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147413, at *219-20 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015). Among other things, plaintiffs asked that the designated witness be compelled to review the company lawyers' witness interview memoranda. The court rejected plaintiffs' motion, concluding that (1) the company lawyers' witness interview memoranda "so intertwine facts and attorney mental impressions that the facts cannot be readily separated from the attorney impressions"; (2) the facts contained in the interview memoranda might be inaccurate, "due to faulty memory or transcription"; and (3) requiring the designated witness to "study the interview memoranda and attempt to extract underlying 'facts' known to the corporation would be an exceedingly time-consuming and problematic undertaking." Id. At *227. The court also noted that plaintiffs had already deposed ten current or former company employees involved in the underlying events.

Not all courts would so readily protect corporate defendants' work product. However, many courts struggle when analyzing privilege and work product protection issues involving Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-10-05	Federal	CA

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.304

**Case Name: Deborah Osborne, Etc. v. Mountain Empire Operations, LLC, Case No. 1:14CV00042, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76732, at 4, 2, 3, 3-4, *4 (W.D. Va. June 15, 2015)**

(finding that a lawyer had acted improperly in preparing a Rule 30(b)(6) witness and in instructing the witness not to answer certain questions, and holding that the court could deal with these violations despite the case's settlement; declining to award sanctions, but "formally" disapproving of the lawyer's conduct; "[T]he deposition's purpose clearly was frustrated by the inadequate preparation of the Rule 30(b)(6) witness. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (stating that corporate representatives in deposition 'must testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization') . . . . While I accept defense counsel's explanation that the witness was supplied by her clients and not chosen by her, she had an independent obligation to make sure that the rules were satisfied by the production of a properly-prepared witness. Indeed, defense counsel admits that she instructed the witness not to talk with important witnesses to the events in preparation for the deposition, but to rely solely on a review of the documentary evidence."; "Moreover, defense counsel plainly violated the rules by instructing the witness not to answer certain questions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) ('A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).'; Ralston Purina Co. v. McFarland, 550 F.2d 967, 973 (4th Cir. 1977) . . . . While certain of the questions were repetitive, if justified, defense counsel could have followed the procedure permitted by the rules by moving to terminate the deposition and promptly obtaining a ruling by the court."; "In addition, on other occasions, counsel interjected comments after questions in ways that could have suggested answers by the witness or otherwise improperly interrupted the question and answer process."; "While these violations of the rules have been established, I will not impose sanctions of Defendants or their counsel. It does not appear that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the conduct of the 30(b)(6) deposition, even had the case gone to trial. . . . Moreover, the Motion for Sanctions was filed not long before trial and over two months after the deposition, thus foreclosing any effective remedial sanctions, such as a retaking of the deposition at the cost of Defendants. Finally, I trust that defense counsel will not repeat the conduct described here.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-06-15	Federal	VA	B 5/16

Chapter: 58.304

Case Name: In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., No. 14-5319, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14016 (D.C. App. Aug. 11, 2015)

(issuing a writ of mandamus and reversing the trial court's holding that KBR waived protections by disclosing documents while preparing its Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, and by inferring in a pleading footnote that its investigation did not uncover any wrongdoing; "At oral argument on this Petition, Barko took the absurd position that KBR's mistake was having Heinrich personally review the COBC documents rather than having someone give him a summary. Barko asserted that in order to avoid privilege waiver KBR should have produced a Rule 30(b)(6) representative with only second -- or third-hand knowledge of the investigation rather than first-hand knowledge. This makes no sense. Such a rule would encourage entities to provide less knowledgeable corporate representatives for deposition, thus defeating the purpose of civil discovery to establish 'the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.'")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-04-11	Federal	DC

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.304

Case Name: Mitre Sports International Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 08 Civ. 9117 (GBD) (HBP), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3812 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2015)

(holding that the subject matter waiver doctrine did not require plaintiff to disclose additional work product protected documents based on its Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses testimony or its attachment of investigation-related documents to its complaint against HBO; "HBO argues that Mitre waived work-product protection by (1) permitting James Boocock to testify to certain matters concerning Mitre's investigation and designating that testimony as its 30(b)(6) testimony and (2) by attaching the products of its investigation to its complaint."; "Boocock's answering HBO's deposition questions did not put Mitre's investigation in issue for the simple reason that providing such testimony was not an attempt by Mitre to use protected information to influence a decision maker. In many cases, the vast majority of deposition testimony taken in discovery is never put before any decision maker; frequently, only a small fraction of the deposition testimony taken in a case is cited in connection with a summary judgment motion or offered at trial. Thus, the mere fact that a party makes a partial disclosure of privileged or protected information in a deposition does not result in a subject-matter waiver because there is no use of the testimony by the party holding the privilege."; "HBO's second argument concerning Boocock's testimony -- that Mitre has made affirmative use of the testimony by designating portions as Mitre's 30(b)(6) testimony does not alter this result. The authorities cited above teach that the critical inquiry is whether protected information has been partially disclosed to a decision maker in an effort to influence a decision. A party's deposition testimony, whether from an individual witness or a 30(b)(6) witness, does not constitute such a use. Although HBO argues that Mitre is trying to utilize the work-product doctrine as both a sword and a shield, it has not cited any instance in which Mitre affirmatively used Boocock's testimony and has not, therefore, established Mitre's use of the work-product doctrine as a sword."; "'I am aware that subsequent to Boocock's deposition, the parties have submitted voluminous materials in connection with their motions for summary judgment. However, HBO does not cite any instances in which Mitre has made any affirmative use of Boocock's testimony in connection with these motions.'")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-01-13	Federal	NY

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Hsingching Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG (SHK), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103353 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2018)

(analyzing the interplay of Rule 30(b)(6) and Rule 612; "Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed the specific question of whether a corporate representative's review of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine that the corporate representative designee relied upon in preparation for testimony under a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition waives that privilege or protection, the Court adopts the balancing test from the set out in Adidas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445, 2017 WL 5630038, at *8. The Court in Adidas laid out a three-part balancing test considering the following factors: (1) whether the documents that the designee used in preparation for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition was used to refresh his or her recollection; (2) whether the documents were used for the purpose of testifying; and (3) whether the interests of justice require disclosure of such documents. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445, [WL] at *8-9.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2018-06-20	Federal	CA

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Hsingching Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG (SHK), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103353 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2018)

(analyzing the interplay of Rule 30(b)(6) and Rule 612; "The first factor -- whether the documents refreshed the designee's recollection -- is read broadly because 'it is the corporation that has the 'prior knowledge of the facts contained in the documents' and thus it is the corporation's knowledge that is being 'refreshed' under FRE 612." 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445, [WL] at *8 (citations omitted). Consequently, '[t]his element is presumed to be met when the corporation or its attorneys choose to refresh the corporation's knowledge with the selected documents.' Id."; "Here, Mr. Bleharski testified that he refreshed his recollection with respect to the topics for discussion during the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Mr. Bleharski testified that he refreshed his recollection by 'reviewing various documents and emails' in order to prepare for his deposition. ECF No. 268-1, Conn Decl., Ex. F at 33. Read broadly, this factor is satisfied."; "The second factor -- whether the documents were used for the purpose of testifying -- the Court applies a rebuttable presumption when the party orders specific documents that were shown to a designated corporate representative to prepare that witness under 30(b)(6). Adidas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445, 2017 WL 5630038, at *8. 'This is particularly true 'where a corporate designee testifies on topics of which he denies any personal knowledge, [because] he is an 'empty vessel' and documents reviewed on those topics in preparation for the deposition necessarily informed his testimony.' Id. (citation omitted)."; "The third factor looks to the whether the disclosure of documents relied on in preparation for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition would serve the interests of justice."; "Here, the Court finds that the balance favors disclosure of the documents that JPM relied on to prepare Mr. Bleharski for his deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) on the noticed topics at issue. First, the topics on which Mr. Bleharski testified were negotiated by JPM's litigation counsel. Second, none of the topics involve areas that seek legal conclusions. Third, there is no indication that the materials include core work product. Fourth, JPM has failed to carry its burden in noting that the number of documents at issue are a very small subset of the produced documents that would necessarily disclose JPM's counsel's thought processes. Finally, there is no indication that producing the index of documents would be burdensome.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2018-06-20	Federal	CA

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

**Case Name: Adidas America, Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445, at 15-16, 18 (D. Or. Nov. 22, 2017)**

February 28, 2018 (PRIVILEGE POINT)

"Court Analyzes the Complex Interplay Between Federal Rule of Evidence 612 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)"

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 612, courts concluding that "justice requires" it may order disclosure of privileged or work product protected documents that refreshed a witness's recollection before testifying. How does that rule apply to Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, who generally have no recollection -- but instead absorb a corporation's collective knowledge before testifying as the corporation's representative?

In Adidas America, Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445, at *15-16, *18 (D. Or. Nov. 22, 2017), the court noted that (1) some courts "appl[y] an 'automatic' waiver under FRE 612" requiring Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses to produce every document they reviewed – an approach the court said had "some appeal," and (2) "many courts exercise discretion by applying a case-by-case balancing test." The court ultimately adopted its own standard, "a middle-ground approach between the automatic waiver rule and the balancing test." Id. at *20-21. Among other things, the court understandably held that in a Rule 30(b)(6) setting an individual witness "is not having his or her own personal knowledge refreshed" – so it is the corporation's knowledge that is being "refreshed" under FRE 612. Id. at *21.

Each of Rule 612 and Rule 30(b)(6) is complicated on its own, but their combination creates additional subtle issues.

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-22	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

(analyzing the interplay between Rule 612 and Rule 30(b)(6); eventually adopting a modified balancing test, and ordering production of some documents a Rule 30(b)(6) witness reviewed before testifying; also analyzing documents that the two witnesses reviewed independently; "Defendants assert that they recently learned that Mr. Federspiel and Ms. Vanderhoff also independently reviewed privileged documents in preparing for their depositions, in addition to the documents selected by the company to prepare them for their testimony under FRCP 30(b)(6). Plaintiffs respond that Defendants fail to meet their burden to show that Mr. Federspiel and Ms. Vanderhoff actually reviewed any documents independently. Plaintiffs do not deny that these witnesses reviewed documents independently, but merely argue that Defendants do not sufficiently prove such review. Given the history of less-than-full candor in discovery by Plaintiffs in this case, the Court is not persuaded by this form-over-substance argument."; "The Court's application of the modified balancing test, however, is only applicable in the context of witnesses designated under FRCP 30(b)(6) for documents selected by the corporation. The presumption of disclosure (that arises from the rebuttable presumptions of elements one and two) is not supported for documents that a witness independently reviews. It is one thing for a corporation to select what documents will educate its FRCP 30(b)(6) witnesses. Those are documents that the company apparently has found to be of such importance to the topic and the need to educate its corporate representatives before their depositions that the company selected them in order to meet its obligations under FRCP 30(b)(6). Therefore, it is both logical and fair to rebuttably presume that those documents were intended to and did refresh the recollection of and influence the testimony of the witnesses and will be of such importance that the interests of justice support disclosure. When a witness independently decides to review a certain document, however, that presents a different matter."; "Documents that a witness -- particularly a witness who lacks personal knowledge of the relevant topic, came to the company after the relevant events, or who is an 'empty vessel' with respect to the relevant topic -- believes may be important to a topic may not be important at all. Presumably, if documents are important to a topic, the company would have selected those documents to meet its obligations under FRCP 30(b)(6). Accordingly, the Court does not find that a presumption of disclosure is appropriate for any documents that Mr. Federspiel or Ms. Vanderhoff may have independently reviewed relating to topics 5, 6, 40, and 42. Instead, the Court orders that, to the extent Mr. Federspiel or Ms. Vanderhoff independently reviewed documents, those documents must be produced to the Court in camera, along with the complete deposition transcripts for these two witnesses. The Court will make a determination as to whether those documents were appropriately designated as privileged or work-product protected and, if so, whether those documents appear to have influenced a witness's testimony such that they should be produced in the interests of justice.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

(analyzing the interplay between Rule 612 and Rule 30(b)(6); eventually adopting a modified balancing test, and ordering production of some documents a Rule 30(b)(6) witness reviewed before testifying; "The second element [under Sporck, [Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3rd Cir. 1985)] asks whether the documents were 'used' for the purpose of testifying. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants fail to show that the witnesses actually relied upon any privileged documents."; "When dealing with FRE 612 issues in the context of depositions of percipient witnesses, courts not infrequently conduct an in camera review to compare the documents at issue with the actual deposition testimony. The court can then evaluate whether the documents appear to have influenced the testimony. In the context of FRCP 30(b)(6) depositions, however, the Court concludes that a better practice is for there to be a rebuttable presumption that the witness relied on the documents selected by the corporation (or its counsel) and then presented to the corporate representative to educate that witness on the noticed topics. Because the deposing party has an obligation to provide a deposition notice with specific and detailed topics and the responding corporation (or other organization) has a corresponding obligation to provide a witness who is knowledgeable on each specified topic, it is an reasonable inference that documents selected by the corporation and provided to the witness to educate him or her on a particular topic is intended to (and thus is likely to) have an influence on the witness's testimony on that topic.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

(analyzing the interplay between Rule 612 and Rule 30(b)(6); eventually adopting a modified balancing test, and ordering production of some documents a Rule 30(b)(6) witness reviewed before testifying; "Considering the issues and concerns of fairness and the attorney-client privilege and work-product protection, the Court finds that the balance favors disclosure of the documents selected by the company and provided to the corporate representative witnesses to prepare them for their depositions under FRCP 30(b)(6) on the specified topics. The identified topics are of significant importance to the defense, are narrow in scope, and involve only a subset of privileged and work-product protected documents selected by the company to educate and refresh the recollection of Plaintiffs' FRCP 30(b)(6) witnesses who otherwise did not have personal knowledge of the topics. The documents were reviewed for the specific purpose of deposition preparation, and the topics involved events that occurred years before the depositions took place. Accordingly, subject to the caveats and opportunities to seek further protection from the Court noted above, Plaintiffs must produce the documents that were shown to Mr. Federspiel and Ms. Vanderhoff to prepare them for their FRCP 30(b)(6) testimony on topics 5, 6, 40, and 42, regardless of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

(analyzing the interplay between Rule 612 and Rule 30(b)(6); eventually adopting a modified balancing test, and ordering production of some documents a Rule 30(b)(6) witness reviewed before testifying; "Considering the issues and concerns of fairness and the attorney-client privilege and work-product protection, the Court finds that the balance favors disclosure of the documents selected by the company and provided to the corporate representative witnesses to prepare them for their depositions under FRCP 30(b)(6) on the specified topics. The identified topics are of significant importance to the defense, are narrow in scope, and involve only a subset of privileged and work-product protected documents selected by the company to educate and refresh the recollection of Plaintiffs' FRCP 30(b)(6) witnesses who otherwise did not have personal knowledge of the topics. The documents were reviewed for the specific purpose of deposition preparation, and the topics involved events that occurred years before the depositions took place. Accordingly, subject to the caveats and opportunities to seek further protection from the Court noted above, Plaintiffs must produce the documents that were shown to Mr. Federspiel and Ms. Vanderhoff to prepare them for their FRCP 30(b)(6) testimony on topics 5, 6, 40, and 42, regardless of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

(analyzing the interplay between Rule 612 and Rule 30(b)(6); eventually adopting a modified balancing test, and ordering production of some documents a Rule 30(b)(6) witness reviewed before testifying; "Some courts, both before and after Sporck [Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3rd Cir. 1985)], have applied an 'automatic' waiver under FRE 612, regardless of whether a deposition witness is a percipient witness or a corporate representative designated under FRCP 30(b)(6). . . . The Court sees some appeal to an automatic waiver rule, particularly in the context of a witness designated under FRCP 30(b)(6)."; "Parties have a 'heightened need to discover' documents used to prepare witnesses designated under FRCP 30(b)(6)."; "Moreover, when a corporation or other organization chooses to use attorney-client privileged or work-product protected documents to prepare its FRCP 30(b)(6) designee, the concern for fairness is heightened."; "In addition, '[a] finding of privilege would place the cross-examiner at an unfair disadvantage. Documents that the witness had consulted would be barred from being used to probe that testimony. An incentive would thereby be created for parties to use privileged documents to prepare witnesses as a means of limiting the preparation of the cross-examiner.'"; "The court also recognizes, however, that many courts exercise discretion by applying a case-by-case balancing test."; "Leading treatises also note that courts are divided between the balancing test and an automatic waiver rule, but generally support the balancing test. . . . Some courts and commentators argue that this approach is most consistent with the text of FRE 612, which supports mandatory waiver under the circumstances of FRE 612(a)(1), but only discretionary waiver under the circumstances of FRE 612(a)(2)."; "After reviewing numerous cases and several leading treatises involving FRE 612 and attorney-client privileged or work-product protected documents, and considering the purposes and requirements of depositions of a corporate representative designated under FRCP 30(b)(6), the Court finds that the application of FRE 612 should be different in the context of a witness designated under FRCP 30(b)(6) than in the context of a deposition of a percipient witness. The Court also does not adopt the application of an automatic waiver rule per se, but instead applies a middle-ground approach between the automatic waiver rule and the balancing test, in which a balancing test is applied but certain elements of the test are considered met with a rebuttable presumption in the context of a witness designated under FRCP 30(b)(6).")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

(analyzing the interplay between Rule 612 and Rule 30(b)(6); eventually adopting a modified balancing test, and ordering production of some documents a Rule 30(b)(6) witness reviewed before testifying; "The first element discussed in Sporck [Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3rd Cir. 1985)] is that a document be used to refresh a witness's recollection. In the context of a deposition of a corporate representative under FRCP 30(b)(6), this element should be read broadly. This is because even if the designee lacks independent knowledge of the noticed topics and is not having his or her own personal knowledge refreshed, because the corporation has an obligation to educate a witness regarding the noticed topics, it is the corporation that has the 'prior knowledge of the facts contained in the documents' and thus it is the corporation's knowledge that is being 'refreshed' under FRE 612. . . . This element is presumed to be met when the corporation or its attorneys choose to refresh the corporation's knowledge with the selected documents."; "Although Mr. Federspiel joined the company in 2015, the relevant topics for purposes of this motion involve conduct that occurred in late 2011 and 2012. Accordingly, Defendants argue, this corporate representative necessarily had to educate himself from the documents he reviewed, including the privileged documents. The Court agrees. The corporation had to refresh its recollection by educating Mr. Federspiel with documents, and the corporation, through its counsel, chose a selection of documents that included privileged documents to do so. Thus, the first element is met with respect to Mr. Federspiel and the documents provided to him. Similarly, with regard to Ms. Vanderhoff, again the company chose to refresh her (and its) recollection and educate her on the relevant topics with privileged documents. Therefore, the first element is met with respect to Ms. Vanderhoff.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

(analyzing the interplay between Rule 612 and Rule 30(b)(6); eventually adopting a modified balancing test, and ordering production of some documents a Rule 30(b)(6) witness reviewed before testifying; "The second element [under Sporck, [Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3rd Cir. 1985)] asks whether the documents were 'used' for the purpose of testifying. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants fail to show that the witnesses actually relied upon any privileged documents."; "When dealing with FRE 612 issues in the context of depositions of percipient witnesses, courts not infrequently conduct an in camera review to compare the documents at issue with the actual deposition testimony. The court can then evaluate whether the documents appear to have influenced the testimony. In the context of FRCP 30(b)(6) depositions, however, the Court concludes that a better practice is for there to be a rebuttable presumption that the witness relied on the documents selected by the corporation (or its counsel) and then presented to the corporate representative to educate that witness on the noticed topics. Because the deposing party has an obligation to provide a deposition notice with specific and detailed topics and the responding corporation (or other organization) has a corresponding obligation to provide a witness who is knowledgeable on each specified topic, it is an reasonable inference that documents selected by the corporation and provided to the witness to educate him or her on a particular topic is intended to (and thus is likely to) have an influence on the witness's testimony on that topic.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

(analyzing the interplay between Rule 612 and Rule 30(b)(6); eventually adopting a modified balancing test, and ordering production of some documents a Rule 30(b)(6) witness reviewed before testifying; "Considering the issues and concerns of fairness and the attorney-client privilege and work-product protection, the Court finds that the balance favors disclosure of the documents selected by the company and provided to the corporate representative witnesses to prepare them for their depositions under FRCP 30(b)(6) on the specified topics. The identified topics are of significant importance to the defense, are narrow in scope, and involve only a subset of privileged and work-product protected documents selected by the company to educate and refresh the recollection of Plaintiffs' FRCP 30(b)(6) witnesses who otherwise did not have personal knowledge of the topics. The documents were reviewed for the specific purpose of deposition preparation, and the topics involved events that occurred years before the depositions took place. Accordingly, subject to the caveats and opportunities to seek further protection from the Court noted above, Plaintiffs must produce the documents that were shown to Mr. Federspiel and Ms. Vanderhoff to prepare them for their FRCP 30(b)(6) testimony on topics 5, 6, 40, and 42, regardless of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-2113-SI, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193445 (D. Ore. Nov. 2, 2017)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-11-02	Federal	OR

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Long v. Destination Maternity Corp., Case No. 15-cv-2836 WQH-RBB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69302 (S.D. Cal. May 5, 2017)

(holding that a notebook brought by a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to a deposition deserved work product protection; also holding that application of Rule 612 required an analysis the magistrate judge had not undertaken; "Defendant has made a sufficient showing that the materials in the binder were prepared by counsel acting in anticipation of the deposition. The order of the Magistrate Judge does not make any findings regarding waiver, substantial need, or undue hardship required to order the production of materials protected by attorney-client privilege or Rule 26(b)(3).")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-05-05	Federal	CA

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: Long v. Destination Maternity Corp., Case No. 15-cv-2836 WQH-RBB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69302 (S.D. Cal. May 5, 2017)

(holding that a notebook brought by a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to a deposition deserved work product protection; also holding that application of Rule 612 required an analysis the magistrate judge had not undertaken; "In this case, the transcript of the deposition shows that the witness relied upon some limited reference to the binder while testifying. However, the order fails to identify any document subject to disclosure under Rule 612 and does not make any finding regarding the interests of justice. Based upon the record before this Court, the Court concludes that the order . . . is contrary to law.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-05-05	Federal	CA

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No 1917,Master Case No 3:07cv05944SC,No 13cv01173; No 13cv05724; No 13cv05261; No 13cv05264; No 13cv05727; No 13cv05726; No 13cv05723; No 13cv05725; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147413 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015)

In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No 1917,Master Case No 3:07-cv-05944SC,No 13-cv-01173;No 13-cv-05724;No 13-cv-05261;No 13-cv-05264;No 13-cv-05727;No 13-cv-05726;No 13-cv-05723;No 13-cv-05725;No 13-cv-05668;No 3:13-cv-05262;No 13-cv-05686;No 13-cv-00157;No 14-cv-02510, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147413 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015) (analyzing defendant's duty to designate and educate a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition witness; rejecting plaintiffs' motion to compel defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) witness to review witness interview memoranda created during an internal corporate investigation -- because the facts contained in such memoranda inevitably intertwined with the defendant's lawyer's opinion; "From these authorities, the undersigned derives the following conclusions: (1) the DAPs' [Direct Action Plaintiffs] motion should be analyzed under the work-product doctrine, not the attorney-client privilege; (2) the work product doctrine forecloses disclosure of the non-privileged facts in Thomson's internal investigation memoranda if the attorneys' mental impressions and strategy cannot reasonably be separated from the underlying non-privileged facts; (3) a Rule 30(b)(6) witness educated on the internal investigation materials may be deposed without invasion of the attorney work-product unless the work-product so permeates the materials making invasion inevitable; and (4) the DAPs should be denied access to the non-privileged facts in the internal investigation memoranda if the DAPs have had access to these facts from other sources. . . . The Upjohn v United States, 449 U.S. 383, 101 S. Ct. 677, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1981), Hickman, Linerboard and Kellogg Brown & Root decisions are analogous and require denial of the DAPs' motion to compel. In particular, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition requiring the corporate designee to prepare by reading all of Thomson's outside counsels' interview memoranda and testifying to the underlying facts would violate the protection afforded to 'core' or 'opinion' work product. . . . Based on this review, the undersigned finds that: (1) the interview memoranda so intertwine facts and attorney mental impressions that the facts cannot be readily separated from the attorney impressions; (2) the facts reported in the interview memoranda are subject to 'grave dangers of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness' due to faulty memory or transcription, noted in Hickman v Taylor (329 US at 512-513) and (3) requiring a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee to study the interview memoranda and attempt to extract underlying 'facts' known to the corporation would be an exceedingly time-consuming and problematic undertaking. In light of the extensive and intertwined attorney thoughts and mental impressions contained in the interview memoranda, the undersigned concludes that the memoranda constitute primarily 'core' or 'opinion' work product. To the extent there are 'facts' reported, it appears that these 'facts' reflect the filter of the attorney transcriber of these interview memoranda."; "The undersigned finds that: (1) Thomson's Rule 30(b)(6) witness was adequately prepared, having spent over 100 hours preparing for the deposition, which the DAPs do not contest; (2) the DAPs have deposed ten Thomson current or former employees from whom facts pertinent to Thomson's conduct were obtained or could have been obtained; (3) the DAPs have thus had the opportunity to obtain the information that appears in the internal investigation materials from other non-privileged sources, including knowledgeable individuals whose depositions have been taken or could have been taken as well as Thomson's document productions; and (4) the DAPs have not provided reasons why any additional information that appears in the internal investigation materials is crucial to their case.").

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-10-05	Federal	CA

Chapter: 58.305

Case Name: In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., No. 14-5319, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14016 (D.C. App. Aug. 11, 2015)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-08-11	Federal	DC

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Petrobras Americas Inc. v. Vicinay Cadenas, S.A., Civ. A. No. 4:12-cv-0888, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42846 (S.D. Tex. March 15, 2018)

(analyzing protection for bills submitted by a company whose employee acted as a litigant's Rule 30(b)(6) witness; "The entries describe Mr. Masson's [Former Petrobras employee now employed by another company, and who acted as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for Petrobras] work and communications with Petrobras' attorneys while preparing to testify in this lawsuit as a representative of Petrobras. These entries clearly fall within the attorney-client and work product privileges. Petrobras did not timely assert privilege, though, and it failed to file a motion to quash the subpoena. However, since the request clearly and unambiguously sought the production of privileged information, it exceeded the bounds of fair discovery. When it learned of the subpoena, Petrobras affirmatively took steps to protect the information by instructing RiserTec to withhold the privileged information and the privileged information was never disclosed to an adverse party. Rule 45 would allow Petrobras to assert these privileges and demand return of the materials even if the information had been produced in response to the subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)(B). In light of the circumstances, Petrobras' untimely assertion of privilege did not waive those privileges.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2018-03-15	Federal	TX

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: NRDC, Inc. v. Ill. Power Res. Generating, LLC, No. 13-CV-1181, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9854 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2018)

(finding that a Rule 30(b)(6) witness would decline to answer questions based on the work product protection; "The Questions ask when did Illinois Power last consider certain changes to the Plant's pollution control equipment, such as adding a baghouse; and what changes did Illinois Power consider making that are reflected in the Line Items. Illinois Power's counsel has shown that Illinois Power considered the changes responsive to the Questions as part of its settlement strategy in 2015 and 2016, and the changes were made because settlement was not reached. The details of settlement strategy are exactly the kind of attorney mental impressions and opinions that the work product privilege is designed to protect. The Loctite case does not apply. The information sought by the Questions is protected attorney work product.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2018-01-22	Federal	IL

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Dennis v. United States, No. 3:16-cv-3148-G-BN, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174856 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2017)

(holding that a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent may be asked for facts that support a litigant's denials or affirmative defenses; addressing the following Rule 30(b)(6) topic: "Topic 1 – 'The facts upon which Defendant bases denials and affirmative defenses stated in its amended answer.'"; "Contention interrogatories often ask for a recitation of the facts on which a claim, defense, allegation, or denial is based. The content or substance of an attorney's evaluation of why or how those facts support a claim or defense may be protected work product. But 'a contention interrogatory seeking a description of the 'factual basis' [not privileged communications or work product] [is] precisely the sort contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2)' and is not protected work product."; "The same analysis applies to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topic seeking the identification of facts."; "'[W]hile, in general, investigative reports prepared by the party's attorney are protected by the work-product doctrine (which is governed by federal law), a corporate representative cannot be instructed not to answer a question seeking factual information within a designated topic for Rule 30(b)(6) testimony simply because the corporate representative learned the information from an attorney who gathered the information in anticipation of litigation or for trial."; "Defendant's work product objection to Topic 1 is not well-taken and overruled. And the Court cannot accept Defendant's assertion that this testimony must await expert reports. . . . And the Court is not persuaded that the mere possibility that an expert report or expert witness's deposition may later adequately cover the same information is good cause for quashal or a protective order as to the Rule 30(b)(6) topic here.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-10-23	Federal	TX

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Dennis v. United States, No. 3:16-cv-3148-G-BN, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174856 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2017)

(holding that a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent may be asked for facts that support a litigant's denials or affirmative defenses; addressing the following Rule 30(b)(6) topic: "Topic 2 – 'The facts upon with Defendant bases its discovery responses, including its interrogatory answers and document production."; "The same analysis applies to Topic 2, which does not improperly seek attorney work product but which runs afoul of Rule 30(b)(6)'s standard because it fails to describe the testimony sought with reasonable particularity.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-10-23	Federal	TX

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Dennis v. United States, No. 3:16-cv-3148-G-BN, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174856 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2017)

(holding that a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent may be asked for facts that support a litigant's denials or affirmative defenses; addressing the following Rule 30(b)(6) topic: "Topic 5 – 'The records and documents requested in Exhibit A to this Notice.'"; "For the reasons explained as to Topic 1, the Court finds that Topic 5 is overly broad on its fact because asking a corporate representative to testify as to an extensive document production fails to describe the testimony sought with reasonable particularity."; "The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant's MPO as to Topic 5 in Plaintiff's Amended Second Notice of Deposition and quashes the Amended Second Notice of Deposition as to Topic 5 and enters a protective order precluding any requirement for Defendant to present a corporate representative as to Topic 5 as currently framed.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-10-23	Federal	TX

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Murray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00484-DBH, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167139 (D. Me. Oct. 9, 2017)

(in connection with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, declining to decide if plaintiff could inquire about facts uncovered during defendant's investigation; "The parties each discuss Protective National Insurance Company of Omaha v. Commonwealth Insurance Company, 137 F.R.D. 267 (D. Neb. 1989), which considered which facts obtained during an investigation by counsel may be protected by the attorney client privilege in the context of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Protective, as well as other cases decided in this Circuit that touch upon the intersection of facts and privilege, especially those facts contained in pre-existing documents later turned over to counsel, are themselves fact-specific cases not easily reduced to bright-line legal pronouncements."; "Here, the parties did not present me in advance of my January Order with how outside counsel obtained the relevant facts or how they used them, if at all, in their legal analysis. Simply put, I was not, and am not, in a position to declare what facts obtained, developed, or considered by outside counsel during the course of the markdown investigation are or are not protected, or to consider whether the information that might be sought by the plaintiff could be obtained in another manner that, although less convenient, would not require trespass into communications between attorneys and their client. Therefore, I deny the plaintiff's request that I 'clarify' my January Order to hold now, in the abstract, that 'facts gathered during the investigation -- and factual conclusions discernible from those facts -- are not protected.'")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-10-09	Federal	ME

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Murray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00484-DBH, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167139 (D. Me. Oct. 9, 2017)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-10-09	Federal	ME

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Alheid v. Target Corp., 16 Civ. 6980 (PGG) (HBP), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138922 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2017)

(holding that a plaintiff could ask the defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) witness about facts, but could not ask the witness for the facts that support the company's contentions; "In contrast to the notices in JPMorgan [JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 209 F.R.D. 361, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)] and Liveperson [Liveperson, Inc. v. 24/7 Customer, Inc., 14 Civ. 1559 (RWS), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99782, 2015 WL 4597546 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2015)], with three exceptions, the 30(b)(6) notice does not seek defendants' contentions or their work product. The notice does not seek to have defendants identify the facts that support their contentions, rather it seeks only facts.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-08-29	Federal	NY

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Hobart Corporation v. The Dayton Power & Light Co., Case No. 3:13-cv-115, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136682 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2017)

("Robert Bleazard was Plaintiff Kelsey-Hayes' 30(13)(6) designee. In preparation for his April 27, 2017, deposition, he made certain interview notes. He also took notes when he and his attorney interviewed Jack Wantz."; "Plaintiffs maintain that, because these notes were prepared in anticipation of litigation by an agent of Kelsey-Hayes, they are protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine and, because both Bleazard and Wantz have already been deposed in the context of this litigation, Defendants cannot show a substantial need for Bleazard's notes. The Court agrees. Accordingly, Plaintiffs need not produce them."; "'Bleazard's notes also contain one statement that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and constitutes core work product.'")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-08-24	Federal	OH

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Garayoa v. Miami-Dade County, Case No. 16-Civ-20213-COOKE/TORRES, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113443 (S.D. Fla. July 20, 2017)

(in connection with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, explaining that the defendant did not allow the witness to describe the factual basis for an affirmative defense; holding that the information did not deserve work product protection, and that the defendant did not properly seek an immediate protective order; "Putting aside Defendant's failure to file a protective order after instructing Officer Reina not to answer, we also find that it was improper for defense counsel to shield Officer Reina from answering a question about the factual underpinnings of an affirmative defense.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-07-20	Federal	FL

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Singh v. Shonrock, Case No. 15-9369-JWL-GEB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25549 (D. Kan. Feb. 22, 2017)

(ordering a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify about document holds; "Plaintiff asks what ESU did, after it received a retention letter from Plaintiff's former counsel, to preserve documents and ESI. . . . Defendants argue they have produced the single non-privileged email in their possession regarding implementation of the litigation hold, and expressed some concern during the conference regarding potential disclosure of attorney-client privileged information. Although Defendants are correct their communications with their attorneys are privileged, the actions taken by the college after being notified of the litigation hold are not, without some other showing, subject to privilege. Additionally, the production of a single email does not provide information sufficient to respond to Plaintiff's request. Therefore, Defendants' objections to Topic No. 10 are overruled, and defendant ESU must prepare and produce a witness most knowledgeable and prepared to discuss the university's actions to preserve evidence.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-02-22	Federal	KS

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Storer v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Civ. A. No. 14-2488, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13349 (W.D. La. Jan. 31, 2017)

(ordering defendant Trane to designate a Rule 30(b)(6) about the following matters; "At the September Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Trane's attorney instructed the corporate representative not to answer the following questions: 'What Mr. Dorman was told on the April 2016 call that led him to believe that "'Mr. Hopkins and other individuals inside of Trane did considerable amount of work to try and bring together the necessary information'"; "'After Mr. Dorman testified that he was given the opportunity to ask Mr. Hopkins questions during the April 2016 call to ensure that preparation for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition was adequate, thorough, and accurate], what is an example of a question he asked Mr. Hopkins and a satisfactory answer he received . . .'"; "'What investigation was done regarding any topic in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice . . . '"; "'What questions Mr. Dorman asked to ensure that all documents regarding any particular matter in the notice were examined . . . ; and'"; "'Who at Trane conducted the investigation into any particular topic in the notice . . .'"; "Trane agrees that plaintiffs have the right to discover what actions were taken by Hopkins to discharge his task of searching for the requested information. . . . For their part, plaintiffs correctly argue that they were not seeking information about legal advice provided by counsel. . . . Rather, they sought information regarding Trane's efforts to search for responsive records and documents."; "Trane is hereby ORDERED to produce one or more representatives fully prepared to discuss all of the 30(b)(6) deposition matters noticed by plaintiffs, including the efforts made to research those matters.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-01-31	Federal	LA

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Miller v. NEP Group, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-9701-JAR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150808 (D. Kansas Oct. 28, 2016)

(in connection with a defendant's general counsel's testimony of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness, holding that the witness could not refuse to answer factual questions about the basis for its affirmative defenses to the extent the facts were provided to the Rule 30(b)(6) witness by the defendants' lawyer; "'[Defendants' Counsel]: No, that is not counsel's objection. The objection as it was on the record . . . the objection was to the extent he is able to testify absent information gained through counsel, then he can; however, to the extent he has to rely on conversations with counsel and information gained through counsel, then I am, instructing him not to answer since those would clearly be privileged and attorney-client communications. That was the objection.'"; "'Instructions like these have been found to be inappropriate witness coaching. See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Serrano, No. 11-2075-JAR, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1363, 2012 WL 28071, at *5 (D. Kan. Jan. 5, 2012) ('Instructions to a witness that they may answer a question 'if they know' or 'if they understand the question' are raw, unmitigated coaching, and are never appropriate. This conduct, if it persists after the deposing attorney requests that it stop, is misconduct and sanctionable.'")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2016-10-28	Federal	KS

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Zimmer, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., Civ. No. 3:14-CV-152-JD, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65133 (N.D. Ind. May 18, 2016)

(analyzing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; finding that some topics were improper because they would have invaded the attorney-client privilege, including the following: "'The actions Stryker took or attempted to take, if any to ensure Stovall, Smith, Whilden, Dickerson, Terrell, and Barnhardt did not violate the Zimmer Agreements, including, but not limited to, Stryker's contentions regarding whether those individuals' employment with Stryker and Crosslink was compliant with the Zimmer Agreement, and if so, how.'"; explaining the court's analysis; "Stryker further objects to the Magistrate Judge's legal findings on Topics 4, 5, and 6 seeking production of a 30(b)(6) witness to provide testimony as to why Stryker believes that the actions Stryker took comply with non-compete restrictions, and whether certain conduct violates the duty of loyalty or breach non-compete or non-solicitation restrictions. Stryker claims these topics seek testimony on Stryker's legal analysis and conclusions with respect to the causes of action in this case and its defenses. The Magistrate Judge applied the correct legal standard and recognized that the law prohibits discovery which inevitably invades the attorney client privilege . . . and he did partially deny the motion to compel, limiting the discovery on these three topics."; "The Magistrate Judge agreed with Stryker's position that Zimmer's pursuit of Topic 4 would improperly invade the attorney-client and work product privilege if it was to result in the disclosure of Stryker's legal theories of defense to Zimmer's claims and specifically noted that 'Stryker need not reveal its legal theories or how it used the facts of the case to shape its defenses.'. . . However, in response to Zimmer's contention that it merely seeks to investigate, discover, and understand: (1) what factual actions Stryker undertook (if any) to ensure the sales representatives at issue complied with their obligations to Zimmer; and (2) how, factually, Stryker believes those representatives' respective employment did so, the Magistrate Judge found that Topic 4 was relevant and appropriate, and must be addressed by the deposition witness. The Magistrate Judge did, however, limit the inquiry to: (1) what factual actions Stryker undertook (if any) to ensure the sales representatives at issue complied with their obligations; and (2) how, factually, Stryker believes those representatives' respective employment did so.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2016-05-18	Federal	IN

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: Variety Stores, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 5:14-CV-217-BO(2), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30085, at 3, 5-6 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 2016)**

(holding that Wal-Mart's Rule 30(b)(6) witness did not waive the company's privilege protection by testifying management learned from its lawyer about a trademark issue, because the testimony did not disclose the substance of the communications; also finding Wal-Mart had not impliedly waived the privilege, and that it disclaimed any intent to rely on the privilege at trial; "Variety contends that Wal-Mart impliedly waived its attorney-client privilege by allowing its Rule 30(b)(6) deponent to testify that Wal-Mart's Brand Team learned of Variety's registered tradename THE BACKYARD and associated marks from Wal-Mart's legal team. . . . Variety further argues that Wal-Mart waived the privilege by arguing on summary judgment that it acted prudently in vetting potential brand names."; "Wal-Mart has not waived its attorney-client privilege with respect to the information sought by Variety. The deposition testimony of Wal-Mart's Rule 30(b)(6) deponent did not disclose the substance of communications between legal counsel and its client. Nor did Wal-Mart place its attorney's advice in issue by disclosing or describing privileged communications in support of any claim or defense raised by Wal-Mart. Accordingly, the undersigned denies Variety's motion to compel production of the documents to which Wal-Mart has asserted attorney-client privilege.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2016-03-09	Federal	NC	B 8/16

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-253, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3011, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 10, 2016)**

March 30, 2016 (PRIVILEGE POINT)

"Another Court Deals with Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions"

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), corporations must designate a witness to testify about the corporation's knowledge. Surprisingly few courts have reconciled this requirement with the common if not universal role that lawyers play in preparing such witnesses.

In 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc., the plaintiff "inquired [during its deposition of Citrix's Rule 30(b)(6) witness] whether Citrix believed that any of its products infringed [Citrix's licensor's] patents and whether Citrix believed the . . . Patents were valid." Case No. 1:06-cv-253, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3011, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 10, 2016). Citrix's witness refused to answer the questions, "on the basis that Citrix's beliefs were inseparable from the legal advice it received with respect to those issues." Id. The court upheld the magistrate judge's conclusion that "Citrix's beliefs regarding the legal issues of infringement and validity were based entirely on the advice of counsel" — meaning that "Citrix's beliefs are one and the same as the advice of counsel, regardless of whether [plaintiff's] questions attempted to directly elicit privileged information." Id. At *9.

Not all courts would be this generous to corporations claiming privilege during their Rule 30(b)(6) witness's deposition testimony. At some point, corporations must state their positions in pleadings, deposition testimony or at trial — but some courts provide more protection than others in the deposition context.

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2016-01-10	Federal	OH

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-253, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3011 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 10, 2016)

(while concluding that a corporation's Rule 30(b)(6) witness could refuse to answer questions about the corporation's "belief," because the corporation relied solely on its lawyer for determining its positions; "During the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Communique inquired whether Citrix believed that any of its products infringed the Tridia patents, and whether Citrix believed the Tridia patents were valid. (MOO at 11303-04.) Feldman declined to answer these questions on the basis that Citrix's beliefs were inseparable from the legal advice it received with respect to those issues, therefore, he could not answer without disclosing attorney-client privileged communications."; "Communique contends that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that a corporation does not hold personal beliefs the same way that a natural person does, pointing out that litigants are regularly required to testify regarding their beliefs, which are not privileged, and the deposition questions at issue were not directed to the advice of counsel received by Citrix. . . . But Communique misses the point. Magistrate Judge Burke did not hold that Feldman properly asserted the privilege simply because a corporation cannot hold a belief. Rather, the magistrate judge found that 'Citrix's beliefs on such legal questions [regarding validity and infringement] were inseparable from its counsel's advice because Citrix 'relies exclusively on the advice of counsel for such legal determinations.'"; "The magistrate judge did not err in finding Davis [Davis v. PMA Co., Inc., No. CIV-11-CV-359-C, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130944, 2012 WL 3933967 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 7, 2012)] inapposite. In this case, Feldman was not deposed as a natural person, but as Citrix's Rule 30(b)(6) witness. When Feldman testified as Citrix's Rule 30(b)(6) witness, he was testifying on behalf of the corporate entity, not individually as an officer or employee of Citrix, as was the case in Davis. As a witness for the corporation, Feldman was not, and could not be, asked about his personal beliefs. Moreover, the magistrate judge found that Citrix's beliefs regarding the legal issues of infringement and validity were based entirely on the advice of counsel. Thus, Citrix's beliefs are one and the same as the advice of counsel, regardless of whether the Communique's questions attempted to directly elicit privileged information.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2016-01-10	Federal	OH

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Epic Systems Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., 14-cv-748-wmc, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166438 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 10, 2015)

(analyzing privilege and work product issues in connection with internal corporate investigations conducted by Loeb & Loeb; finding the privilege inapplicable and concluding that the plaintiff could overcome any possible work product protection; finding that the privilege did not apply because (among other things) "the report contains no legal advice."; inexplicably concluding that the investigation's focus might have deserve privilege protection; "The court found Muthuswami's [Defendant's president] reliance on summary documents to be routine, and did not constitute a waiver of the underlying attorney-client privilege, although counsel rightly disclosed the summary documents as an aid to Muthuswami's testimony. To the extent that the information in the summary documents came from Loeb & Loeb's earlier investigations, perhaps the production of those documents coupled with Muthuswami's testimony would have constituted waiver, but TCS's counsel at the hearing represented that she had independently prepared those summary documents and the court has no basis to find otherwise. While the court continues to find fault with the designation of Muthuswami as the sole 30(b)(6) designee given his limited knowledge on a variety of designated subjects, this, too, is no basis for stripping away at the attorney-client privilege between defendants and their trial counsel.").

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-12-10	Federal	WI

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No 1917,Master Case No 3:07cv05944SC,No 13cv01173; No 13cv05724; No 13cv05261; No 13cv05264; No 13cv05727; No 13cv05726; No 13cv05723; No 13cv05725; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147413 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-10-05	Federal	CA

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Master Case No. 3:07-cv-05944SC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147413, at *219-20 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015)**

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-10-05	Federal	CA

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No 1917, Master Case No 3:07cv05944SC, No 13cv01173; No 13cv05724; No 13cv05261; No 13cv05264; No 13cv05727; No 13cv05726; No 13cv05723; No 13cv05725; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147413 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-10-05	Federal	CA

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: VC Management, LLC v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., No. 14 CV 1385, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51343 (N.D. Ill. April 20, 2015)

(analyzing Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; "VCM claims that because Kusick 'relied heavily on these privileged E-mails' during her deposition testimony, they are discoverable. . . . ('It follows that when a Rule 30(b)(6) witness testifies on behalf of a corporation based upon information obtained from another corporate source (even an otherwise privileged source), that the adverse party is entitled to discovery of the source material.').) VCM argues that Kusick 'did not and could not deactivate the portion of her brain containing information related to the officer signature requirement[.]'. . . By VCM's reckoning, clients would initiate subject matter waivers each and every time they recalled information, privileged or not, that was discussed in a privileged communication with an attorney, even if other sources supplied the exact same knowledge. VCM does not supply any authority for this principle, and its bare assertion is unpersuasive. Kusick has not revealed any privileged information, and certainly has not done so in such a way that would give ReliaStar any unfair advantage in this litigation. The analysis on this issue might be different if Kusick's exclusive source of knowledge about the signature policies at ReliaStar were the privileged emails and if she had testified about the content of those emails. But because Kusick testified based on her work experience and without disclosing the substance of the privileged emails, there was no subject matter waiver.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-04-20	Federal	IL

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., No. 8:11CV270, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129638, at *9 (D. Neb. Sept. 11, 2013)**

("To the extent that Topic No. 36 seeks strategic information or attorney impressions, conclusions, or opinions such as 'calculations and evaluations related to any settlements,' the Court finds such information should be protected from inquiry in the 30(b)(6) deposition. However, if a Cargill [plaintiff] representative has knowledge of the underlying facts, regardless of whether such facts were the subject of a privileged communication or committed to writing in attorney work product, they are non-privileged and must be disclosed if inquired upon.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-09-11	Federal	NE	B 5/14

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: Cotton v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 12-2731-JWL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103367, at *11-12 (D. Kan. July 24, 2013)**

("Courts have generally declined to uphold privilege or work-product objections to Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices unless the deposition topics, on their face, call for testimony that would be protected from disclosure. That is not the case here, and it would be speculative to prohibit inquiry into this subject matter on the basis that Mr. Cotton's counsel could potentially ask a question regarding privileged information. The more appropriate vehicle for raising privilege and work-production objections in the context of a deposition is for counsel to lodge objections to specific questions. Counsel may then explore background facts concerning the objection, and the deponent can have an opportunity to substantiate the objection." (footnoted omitted))

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-07-24	Federal	KS	B 4/14

Chapter: 58.306

Case Name: Martin v. Allstate Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 3:12-CV-00923-G-BK, 2013 U.S. Dist. 50675 (N.D. Tex. April 4, 2013)

(analyzing discovery about discovery; "Plaintiff's proposed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition Topics 2-7 include (1) Defendant's document retention policies; (2) Defendant's efforts in responding to Plaintiff's discovery; (3) Defendant's computer systems; (4) the date by which Defendant anticipated that Plaintiff would sue; and (5) Defendant's efforts, including any instructions to employees, to preserve documents and electronic information relevant to the anticipated suit. (Doc. 23-1 at 3)."; "While Plaintiff speculates that Defendant may have additional documentation that it has not produced, there is no evidence to support that supposition at this point. Defendant's explanation for the manner in which it has produced documents, based on Plaintiff's staggered discovery requests and clarifications, is plausible. Moreover, defense counsel are surely aware that they are under an ongoing obligation to supplement their discovery responses if additional responsive information is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26€(1). As to Topic 4, which seeks testimony about Defendant's computer systems, if Defendant refuses to supply the necessary information, Plaintiff is under no obligation to accept Defendant's request to use search terms to locate responsive discovery. Defendant will simply be obligated to manually search for the requested documents.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-04-04	Federal	TX

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: SEC v. Kovzan, Case No. 11-2017-JWL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23637, at *8-9 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2013)**

(ordering the government to produce witnesses for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; "Courts have generally declined to uphold privilege or work-product objections to Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices unless the deposition topics, on their face, call for testimony that would be protected from disclosure. The first two categories of topics --the factual basis for the SEC's contentions and theories in this case and the SEC's actions in discovery -- do not, on their face, implicate the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. These topics indicate that Mr. Kovzan is seeking the facts that support the theories and information about how the SEC has gone about identifying responsive information in discovery. The SEC even suggests that many of these topics would be more appropriately discovered through interrogatories. But the fact that discovery is sought through another vehicle --in this case a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition --does not transform discoverable material into protected material." (footnote omitted))

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-02-21	Federal	KS	B 3/14

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: SEC v. Kovzan, Case No. 11-2017-JWL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23637, at *9-10 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2013)**

(ordering the government to produce witnesses for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; "As for the third category of topics -- those concerning the interpretation and meaning of certain regulatory terms and guidance and any confusion regarding the same -- certain questions could conceivably call for information protected by the deliberative-process privilege. Mr. Kovzan may not obtain through deposition privileged information contained in documents he could not obtain through written discovery. Again, however, it would be speculative to prohibit the deposition on this basis. For example, the SEC has also set forth public guidance and communicated with third parties about these topics. This information would not be privileged and would likely form the basis for at least some of the deponent's answers. The SEC is free to raise privilege and work-product objections to specific questions during the deposition. Counsel may then explore background facts concerning the objection, and the deponent can substantiate the objection.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-02-21	Federal	KS	B 3/14

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: SEC v. Kovzan, Case No. 11-2017-JWL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23637, at 2-3, 2 n.2 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2013)**

(ordering the government to produce witnesses for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; "On December 18, 2012, Mr. Kovzan served on the SEC his Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of the SEC's Deposition. The notice lists twenty-six deposition topics that fall into one of three general categories. Several topics concern the factual basis for the SEC's contentions and theories of this case and the related case, SEC v. NIC, Inc., 11-2016-EFM. Other topics concern the steps the SEC took to obtain and produce discovery documents in this case and the reasons for the SEC's objections to certain discovery requests. The remainder of the topics concern the interpretation and meaning of certain regulatory terms and guidance and any confusion regarding those terms and guidance. The SEC has now moved for a protective order barring the deposition." (footnotes omitted); "The final topic asks the deponent to be prepared to testify about the steps taken to prepare answers for the deposition.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-02-21	Federal	KS	B 3/14

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: Norco Indus., Inc. v. CPI Binani, Inc., Civ. No. 2:12 cv 313, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176588, at *12-14 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 13, 2012)**

(analyzing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; holding that asking for factual support was the equivalent of an improper deposition of a lawyer; "Norco's deposition topics exceed the scope of discovery and attempt to discover the legal conclusions and mental impressions of CPI's attorneys. The proposed topics state Norco's intent to inquire about the factual basis of CPI's possible defenses. The factual basis of any defenses that may be raised is a determination made by CPI's attorneys. This would amount to an attempt to depose opposing counsel. . . . To respond, Norco either would need to depose CPI's attorney or CPI's attorney would need to prepare a witness to testify about the basis of its defenses. In either case, it would reveal the factual and legal theories of the defenses CPI's attorney intends to raise. If Norco were to make this inquiry to a CPI employee who has been informed about the basis of the defenses for the purpose of the deposition, this would infringe upon the attorney-client privilege, which shields from discovery any communications between the attorney and his client. . . . If Norco were to depose CPI's attorney, this directly would reveal his or her mental impressions and the legal theories on which he or she basis the defenses.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2012-12-13	Federal	IN	B 9/13

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: Norco Indus., Inc. v. CPI Binani, Inc., Civ. No. 2:12 cv 313, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176588, at *14-15 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 13, 2012)**

(analyzing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; holding that asking for factual support was the equivalent of an improper deposition of a lawyer; "Norco attempts to remove its proposed topic from the shield of these privileges by limiting the inquiry to the 'factual basis' of the defenses rather than the attorney's legal basis. However, the court cannot fathom a manner in which the factual basis can be revealed without disclosing CPI's attorney's mental conclusions, legal theories, and conclusions. Discovery of the factual basis of the defenses would reveal the attorney's impression of the facts and legal theory of the case. Additionally, Norco will learn of CPI's proposed defenses when CPI files its response to Norco's motion for a preliminary injunction. For these reasons, the court agrees that proposed deposition topics 6-8 are improper.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2012-12-13	Federal	IN	B 9/13

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: Gueniot-Kornegay v. Blitz U.S.A., No. 3:10CV429-TSL-MTP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172468, at *7 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 5, 2012)**

(analyzing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a Wal-Mart employee; "Wal-Mart voices its concerns of revealing privileged or work-product protected information if its designee were to testify in detail about actions taken by its counsel in defending prior and ongoing lawsuits. The court recognizes that deposition questions about the expert reports beyond the date they were received by Wal-Mart could possibly invade the attorney-client privilege or work-product protected information. However, this is easily avoided by Wal-Mart simply producing the expert reports with the limitations described above along with a written statement as to when Wal-Mart received the reports.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2012-12-05	Federal	MS	B 9/13

Chapter: 58.306

**Case Name: Foster v. City of N.Y., Nos.14 Civ. 4142 & 9220 (PGG) (JCF), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14594, at *532 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2016)**

(in an opinion by Magistrate Judge James Francis, finding that the defendant City triggered a waiver by seeking to avoid liquidated damages by claiming subjective good faith in attempting to comply with FLSA guidelines, and finding a broad scope of waiver that included communication with any level of City employees, but not extending to lawyer-to-lawyer communications that did not involve City employees; "In addition, the City must produce a witness to provide testimony pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the City's efforts to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act. This opinion has clarified the extent of the City's waiver of privilege, as well as the requirements for a proper assertion of work product privilege. The deponent may interpose appropriate objections based on privilege when specific questions are asked.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
	Federal	NY	B 8/16

Chapter: 58.402

**Case Name: Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co. v. Davis, Case No. 1:11-cv-0851, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5253, at *16-17 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2013)**

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-01-14	Federal	OH	B 7/13

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Cryer v. Idaho DOL, Case No. 1:16-cv-00526-BLW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50556 (D. Idaho March 26, 2018)

(applying the Shelton standard to the government's in-house lawyer; finding that the whistleblower plaintiff could not satisfy the Shelton standard, but could try again later; "[C]ourts in this District have relied on the Shelton factors when parties seek to depose either trial counsel or in-house counsel."; "Mr. Cryer does not contest that Ms. Pacillo serves as in-house counsel for IDOL. . . . Nor does he contest that depositions of opposing counsel are generally allowed only under limited circumstances. Id. Thus, at issue here is whether Mr. Cryer has established that the factors identified in Shelton and adopted in this District have been met, such that this case falls within those limited circumstances. He has not done so, and the Court will therefore grant Defendants' motion."; "[I]f it develops through further discovery, that Cryer can satisfy the Shelton standard and that it is Pacillo's advice that defendants rely on in asserting the advice of counsel defense, the Court would likely reconsider its decision here.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2018-03-26	Federal	ID

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Tillman v. Advanced Public Safety, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-81782-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26549 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2017)

(rejecting plaintiff's efforts to depose defendant's general counsel and vice president; essentially using the Shelton standard; "Since James Kirkland is also the general counsel for Trimble, Plaintiff's request to take his deposition causes additional concerns. The confidentiality of attorney-client privileged communications 'is an interest traditionally deemed worthy of maximum legal protection.'. . . a party seeking an attorney's deposition 'must demonstrate that the deposition is the only practical means available of obtaining the information.' Id. Moreover, the party seeking the deposition of an attorney has the burden to show 'that the information sought (1) is relevant; (2) its need outweighs the dangers of deposing a party's attorney; and (3) the information sought will not invade the realm of the attorney's work product or interfere with the attorney-client privilege.'")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-02-16	Federal	FL

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Natural Alternatives Int'l, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, Inc., Case No.: 15-cv-02081-JM-AGS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175231 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2016)

("The taking of attorney depositions in this district is controlled by the so-called Shelton test, which was first set out in Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1987). Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet explicitly adopted it, our district has routinely applied the test to situations where, as here, a party seeks to take the deposition of opposing counsel concerning the instant litigation."; "NAI focuses its argument primarily on whether the information it wishes to obtain from Nolte is privileged, but that addresses only one of these three prongs. Setting aside the privilege issues (addressed below) and whether other means exist to glean the information, NAI has not shown how deposing the opposing legal team is crucial to its case. NAI argues that it wants to know the steps Nolte took in investigating and making the legal conclusions and opinions set out in the email. That information would certainly be relevant to some of NAI's claims. But NAI does not explain, and this Court's own research has not disclosed, how that information would be critical to any element of any of its causes of action or would be necessary to clear up any critical factual issues left unresolved by other discovery avenues. Thus, the Court concludes that NAI has not met its burden under Shelton and grants Creative's motion for a protective order as to that issue.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2016-12-16	Federal	CA

Chapter: 58.403

**Case Name: CTB, Inc. v. Hog Slat, Inc., No. 7:14-CV-157-D, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39024, at *16 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 23, 2016)**

("The Fourth Circuit has not definitively ruled that the Shelton [Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986)] test applies in this circuit, although other district courts within the circuit have applied it or a similar test to determine if the deposition of trial counsel is warranted.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2016-03-23	Federal	NC	B 8/16

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Nelson v. Hardacre, Case No. 15-7454-JWL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3760 (D. Kansas Jan. 12, 2016)

(apply Shelton, and declining to allow a deposition)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2016-01-12	Federal	KS

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., Case No.: 14cv1158 BAS (JLB), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165874 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015)

("Having considered the parties' positions, the Court finds that Shelton provides the proper standard to determine whether Plaintiffs should be allowed to depose Defendant's in-house counsel. While the Ninth Circuit has not issued a published decision governing depositions of opposing counsel in the context of soliciting testimony about a pending case, courts in this district and elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit recognize Shelton as the leading case on attorney depositions and follow the three-factor test laid out in the case."; "[A]s Defendant correctly points out in its Motion, Plaintiffs may not depose Mr. Tabaddor [In-house lawyer] about the facts contained in Defendant's interrogatory responses because the facts are available to Plaintiffs by other means -- the discovery responses themselves.").

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-12-10	Federal	CA

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: SEC v. Zufelt, Case No. 2:10-cv-00574-DB-DBP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155885 (D. Utah Nov. 17, 2015)

(apply the Shelton doctrine in denying the SEC's effort to depose a lawyer; "[T]here are several alternative sources of information. In fact, the SEC noticed the deposition of Pelican Station itself for the same day the SEC intends to depose Counsel. . . . The SEC has also noticed the deposition of Anthony Zufelt for December. . . . These depositions provide alternative sources for the SEC to obtain the information it seeks. The SEC appears to believe that these alternatives may not be successful based upon other discovery-related difficulties. This may or may not be correct, but precedent makes clear that the SEC must at least pursue these alternatives before deposing Counsel.").

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-11-17	Federal	UT

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Alomari v. Ohio Dept. of Public Safety, No. 14-3922, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16237 (6th Cir. App. Sept. 9, 2015)

(in a discrimination case; holding that the attorney-client privilege protected communications about defendant's response to media inquiries; "The district court did not abuse its discretion by applying Massillon Management to the facts below. Similarly to the in-house attorney in Shelton and Massillon Management, OSPS's three attorneys gathered documents about Plaintiff from Columbus State in order to conduct an administrative investigation, something that could give rise to a legal dispute. As the district court correctly noted: 'Attorney Reed-Frient provided legal advice to ODPS regarding the decision to terminate Plaintiff, which the court found to be sufficient in Massillon Management. Further, the other two attorneys who Plaintiff seeks to depose were involved in acquiring and handing documents related to the investigation that led to Plaintiff's termination, which the court in Shelton found to be sufficient involvement.'"; "This case, like Shelton involved attorneys who obtained documents in relation to potential litigation.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-09-09	Federal	OH

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: In re GM LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 14-MC-2543 (JMF), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106170 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2015)

(limiting plaintiffs' questioning of the lawyer who investigated GM's ignition switch issue; noting that GM pledged not to call the lawyer or rely on the report at trial; "[T]o the extent that Plaintiffs intend to ask whether Valukas considered certain documents or facts in preparing the Report . . . Those questions would invariably reveal Valukas's 'mental impressions [and] personal beliefs,'. . . Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1326 (8th Cir. 1986) ('[W]here, as here, the deponent is opposing counsel and has engaged in a selective process of compiling documents from among voluminous files in preparation for litigation, the mere acknowledgment of the existence of those documents would reveal counsel's mental impressions, which are protected as work product.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-08-11	Federal	NY

Comment:

key case

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Gebremedhin v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Civ. A. No. 1:13-cv-02813-CMA-NYW, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91948 (D. Colo. July 15, 2015)

("American Family contends that it should not be required to set forth such a showing, because Ms. Norton is not trial counsel for any party still a party to this action. . . . Although some courts have held that the Shelton standards apply only to trial counsel, it is clear that the circumstances of this case continue to present significant issues with respect to privilege and waiver for Ms. Norton and the Turners. Therefore, this court -- like many others within and outside this circuit -- finds that consideration of the Shelton factors is appropriate.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-07-15	Federal	CO

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Espejo v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 11 CV 8987, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164758 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 2014)

(analyzing the Shelton doctrine; "[W]e note that, as was the case with one of the attorneys in Quality Croutons [Quality Croutons, Inc. v. George Weston Bakeries, Inc., 05 C 4928, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60715, 2006 WL 2375460 (N.D. Ill. August 14, 2006) (Schenker, J.)] who was 'Vice President-General Counsel,' Mr. Jones [defendant's in-house lawyer] holds a dual title: Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel. The significance of the dual title is that Mr. Jones may wear both 'a legal and business hat.' which would mean that his communications and knowledge would not be privileged if made or obtained in his business, rather than legal, capacity. . . . We make no determination about whether all of the information Mr. Jones possesses with respect to defendant's compliance policies and procedures is in fact privileged. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that Mr. Jones possesses non-privileged, relevant information he gained as a Santander Senior Vice President.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2014-11-25	Federal	IL

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Espejo v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 11 CV 8987, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164758 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 2014)

(analyzing the Shelton doctrine; "[I]t is not evident that all of Mr. Jones's [defendant's in-house lawyer] knowledge would implicate the attorney-client privilege. To be sure, Mr. Jones's knowledge of what was said at the meeting with the FCC is not privileged, given that the meeting took place with a third-party governmental entity. A conversation involving a client's lawyer and a third party plainly is not privileged.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2014-11-25	Federal	IL

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Espejo v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 11 CV 8987, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164758 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 2014)

("We recognize that the deposition of a party's attorney -- whether in-house or trial counsel -- does impose more of a burden than the deposition of other fact witnesses. Whether the attorney is questioned on matters that implicate the attorney-client privilege or not, the possibility of such a situation requires extra vigilance on the part of party being deposed. Such a deposition also increases the likelihood that further motion practice will be required if the parties cannot agree whether a particular line of questioning implicates privileged matters. Therefore, where the deposition of an attorney can be avoided because the same information is available from other, non-privileged sources, it is prudent for the parties to pursue that course of discovery first.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2014-11-25	Federal	IL

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Busey v. Richland School Dist., No. 13-CV-5022-TOR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50579 (E.D. Wash. April 10, 2014)

("While no published Ninth Circuit cases address this matter directly, district court cases in this circuit have adopted the Shelton standard for evaluating whether counsel may be deposed.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2014-04-10	Federal	WA

Chapter: 58.403

**Case Name: M.A. Mobile Ltd. v. Indian Inst. of Tech. Kharagpur, Case No. C-08-02658-RMW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26376, at *6 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014)**

(applying the Shelton (Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir.1986)) standard; "Although plaintiffs argue for the more flexible 'totality of the circumstances test,'. . . the Shelton test is widely accepted in this district.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2014-02-28	Federal	CA	B 8/14

Chapter: 58.403

**Case Name: DeWitt v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., Case No. 12-2605-SAC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22760, at *22-23 (D. Kan. Feb. 24, 2014)**

(finding that a plaintiff had not established the Shelton standard and therefore did not depose defendant's lawyer; "As for Ms. DeWitt's arguments about the affirmative defenses, the court lacks much information about the facts forming the basis for these defenses. Southwestern Bell states it plans to rely on . . . its policies and anti-discrimination enforcement efforts. This being the case, it seems unlikely that Mr. Bourgeacq, a general attorney in the labor and human resources department, would be the exclusive source for information relevant to these defenses. Ms. DeWitt has not shown the information she seeks is unavailable from other sources. Additionally, Ms. DeWitt has not addressed the third criterion: that the information is crucial to the preparation of her case. Because she has failed to establish two of the three criteria of the Shelton test [Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cirl 1986)], the court will not compel the deposition of Mr. Bourgeacq. The court declines to consider the second-listed criterion.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2014-02-24	Federal	KS	B 7/14

Chapter: 58.403

Case Name: Couturier v. Am. Invsco Corp., Case No. 2:12-cv-01104-APG-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118001 (D. Nev. Aug. 20, 2013)

(using the Shelton (Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir.1986)) standard)

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-08-20	Federal	NV	B 4/14

Chapter: 58.403

**Case Name: Ford Motor Co. v. Nat'l Indem. Co., Civ. A. No. 3:12cv839, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102985, at *6 (E.D. Va. July 22, 2013)**

("The test for determining whether it is appropriate to allow the deposition of an opposing party's counsel is set forth in Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986). The Shelton standard has been adopted by the First, Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Circuits. Our Court of Appeals has not decided the issue; however, district court decisions within the circuit rather uniformly have followed the Shelton standard.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2013-07-22	Federal	VA	B 9/13

Chapter: 58.403

**Case Name: McFarland v. McFarland, Case No. (Chancery) 116434, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 597, at *1-2 (Va. Cir. Ct. Jan. 29, 1992)**

(quashing a litigant's deposition of the adversary's lawyer; "The premise for the underlying deposition subpoena is based upon cross-motions for sanctions under § 8.01-271.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. I find that the Defendant has failed to establish that alternative discovery avenues have been exhausted or proven impractical and that there is a substantial need for the deposition of opposing counsel in this case. See generally Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986); Niagara Mohawk Power v. Stone & Webster Eng'g, 125 F.R.D. 578, 593 (N.D.N.Y. 1989). The circumstances of this case suggest a risk of exposure of privileged information if the subpoena is not quashed, despite the existence of apparently viable discovery alternatives. Therefore, the Court in the exercise of its discretion grants the motion to quash the deposition subpoena issued to counsel for the complainant/cross-defendant.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
1992-01-29	State	VA	B 3/16

Chapter: 58.404

Case Name: Wye Oak Tech., Inc. v. Republic of Iraq, Civ. No. 1:10-cv-01182-RCL, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159097 (D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2018)

(allowing the deposition of an opposing lawyer; "The Court must be wary of permitting depositions of opposing counsel, especially when such depositions could 'undermine attorney-client communications, present unique opportunities for harassment, disrupt opposing counsel's preparation, may lead to opposing counsel's disqualification, and may spawn collateral litigation on issues of privilege, scope, and relevancy.'. . . In determining whether to allow the deposition of opposing counsel, courts consider 'the need to depose the lawyer, the lawyer's role in connection with the matter on which discovery is sought and in relation to the pending litigation, the risk of encountering privilege and work-product issues, and the extent of discovery already conducted.'")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2018-09-18	Federal	DC

Chapter: 58.404

Case Name: Diamond Consortium, Inc. v. Manookian, Civ. A. No. 4:16-CV-00094, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83252 (E.D. Tex. May 31, 2017)

(allowing deposition of an adverse party's paralegal; "The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically prohibit deposing an opposing party's paralegals."; "Here, Plaintiffs allege Defendants created public websites and advertisements accusing Plaintiffs of cheating customers and selling over graded diamonds. Plaintiffs allege Rice and Pepe may have knowledge about the creation of these allegedly negative websites and advertisements. Defendants generally respond that any work Rice and Pepe completed was in anticipation of litigation or at the direction of attorneys. Defendants do not explain how the attorney-client and work-product privilege apply to public websites and advertisements that were not for the purpose of obtaining or rendering legal advice. Defendants thus have not met their burden of showing an applicable privilege for the categories of information Plaintiffs seek from Rice and Pepe.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2017-05-31	Federal	TX

Chapter: 58.404

Case Name: FTC v. DIRECTV, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-01129-HSG (MEJ), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103602 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016)

("Courts have held that Shelton does not apply to all circumstances where a party seeks to depose opposing counsel. . . . The problem is that the precise nature and extent of Mr. Suzuki's involvement in this case is unclear; DIRECTV did not elaborate on what exactly Mr. Suzuki has done. As the FTC points out, some courts have declined to apply Shelton to situations where the attorney sought to be deposed is not trial counsel or does not directly represent the party in the pending litigation."; "It is undisputed that Mr. Suzuki has not formally appeared in this matter. But because the Court cannot ascertain the extent of Mr. Suzuki's involvement in this case, the Court does not resolve Shelton's applicability. The Court is instead guided by Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which requires courts to 'limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that . . . the discovery sought . . . can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive[.]' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). The Court finds there are ways the FTC can obtain the information it seeks without deposing Mr. Suzuki, specifically, by deposing a Rule 30(b)(6) designee.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2016-08-05	Federal	CA

Chapter: 58.404

Case Name: Herron v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-2103 GEB CKD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58287 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2015)

(applying the Second Circuit rather than the Shelton [Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986)] standard for analyzing depositions of opposing lawyers; "Although defendant is correct that Shelton has not been adopted by the Ninth Circuit, the privileged nature of the information defendant seeks here by deposing plaintiff's attorneys must be considered in determining whether a protective order should issue. Those courts which have not found Shelton to be persuasive take a more global approach in weighing the propriety of deposing counsel, but acknowledge that one factor that should be considered is the risk of encountering privilege and work-product issues. See, e.g. Younger Mfg. Co. v. Kaenon, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 586 588 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (court adopted reasoning of Second Circuit, concluding that multi-factor approach is appropriate in considering whether counsel should be deposed; factors include 'the need to depose the lawyer, the lawyer's role in connection with the matter on which discovery is sought and in relation to the pending litigation, the risk of encountering privilege and work-product issues, and the extent of discovery already conducted).")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked
2015-05-04	Federal	CA

Chapter: 58.404

Case Name: Espejo v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 11 CV 8987, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164758 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 2014)

(analyzing the Shelton doctrine; "It is true that some judges in the Northern District of Illinois have used the Shelton test to determine whether to allow the deposition of a party's attorney. . . . Others, however, including the district judge precisely in this matter, employ a more flexible approach that looks at all the circumstances of the particular case.")

Case Date	Jurisdiction	State	Cite Checked