When a Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6) "Does Not Know" about a Topic

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow a party to disclaim knowledge in a Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6) deposition and, later, offer testimony about that topic.

Courts have ruled that because a Rule 30(b)(6) designee testifies on behalf of the entity, the entity is not allowed to defeat a motion for summary judgment based on an affidavit that conflicts with its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition or contains information that the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent professed not to know

 

7-30 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil § 30.25 (2016)(emphasis added)

 

Federal courts apply this principle to preclude evidence a corporate witness “did not know”.

“[D]epending on the nature and extent of the obfuscation, the testimony given by the non-responsive deponent (e.g. "I don't know") may be deemed "binding on the corporation" so as to prohibit it from offering contrary evidence at trial.”

Wilson v. Lakner, 228 F.R.D. 524, 530 (D. Md. 2005) citing Rainey v. American Forest & Paper Ass'n, 26 F. Supp. 2d 82, 94-95 (D.D.C. 1998);

 

            Courts impose this proscription because the  Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6) deposition is intended to ease the burden on corporations and, conversely, corporations have an obligation to present well-prepared witnesses:

“By commissioning the designee as the voice of the corporation, the Rule obligates a corporate party "to prepare its designee to be able to give binding answers" in its behalf. Unless it can prove that the information was not known or was inaccessible, a corporation cannot later proffer new or different allegations that could have been made at the time of the 30(b)(6) deposition”

Id. at , 94 quoting Ierardi v. Lorillard, Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11320, 1991 WL 158911, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13,    1991); United States v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356, 361 (M.D.N.C. 1996)(emphasis added)

 

 

The Western District of North Carolina excluded evidence on “the central issue” because the Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6) witness was unprepared.

 

“[Movant] could not first take the position  that it had no information on that subject and then later, after the close of discovery and the filing of the Defendant's dispositive motion, completely reverse itself”

Caraustar Indus. v. N. Ga. Converting, Inc., No. 3:04CV187-H, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91829, at *21-22 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2006)