Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdepositionmotioncivil procedure
plaintiffdepositionmotionwillcivil procedure

Related Cases

Tasini v. AOL, Inc., 851 F.Supp.2d 734, 40 Media L. Rep. 1641
View Case »
Tarnawa v. Goode, 172 N.H. 321, 213 A.3d 867
View Case »
F.T.C. v. Enforma Natural Products, Inc., 31 Fed.Appx. 349, 2002 WL 460239
View Case »
Laube v. Estate of Thomas, 376 N.W.2d 108
View Case »
Morningstar v. Black and Decker Mfg. Co., 162 W.Va. 857, 253 S.E.2d 666
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Burton v. United States, 347 F.R.D. 25, 118 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1612

Facts

The case arises from the death of Franklin Ramos Sanchez, who died while in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons after being extradited to the United States. The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the government to produce the names and resumes of witnesses who would testify at depositions, as well as certain documents. The government had grouped the topics of the deposition into three categories and planned to produce three witnesses to testify on these matters. The plaintiffs later added a fourth topic and demanded the disclosure of the witnesses' identities and resumes, which the government refused.

On June 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Letter Motion seeking to compel the Government to produce the names and resumes of its Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses and to produce the documents requested in its Notice.

Issue

Whether the court should compel the government to produce the names and resumes of its Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses and certain requested documents.

Whether the court should compel the government to produce the names and resumes of its Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses and certain requested documents.

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), a party may name a governmental agency as a deponent and must describe the matters for examination, requiring the organization to designate individuals to testify on its behalf.

Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part: In its notice … a party may name as the deponent a … governmental agency, or other entity … and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination.

Analysis

The court found that the identities and resumes of the government's Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses should be disclosed to the plaintiffs in advance of the depositions to facilitate the efficiency and productivity of the deposition process. The court noted that the identities of the witnesses were not secret and that providing this information would assist in securing a just and speedy determination of the case. However, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for the production of certain documents, as the government had already produced some of them and the others were deemed not proportional to the needs of the case.

The Court finds, in its discretion, that the identities of the Government's Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses should be provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel in advance of the depositions, along with the witnesses’ resumes.

Conclusion

The court ordered the government to identify its Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses and produce their resumes at least one business day before each deposition, while denying the motion to compel the production of certain documents.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in part, as the court ordered the government to disclose the identities and resumes of its witnesses, which was essential for the deposition process.

The Court finds that it will facilitate the efficiency and productivity of the Government's Rule 30(b)(6) depositions by having the Government identify its Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses in advance of their depositions.

You must be