Briana Leakas v. Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION BRIANA LEAKAS, et al., Case No. 22-cv-01422-VKD 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MAY 11, 2023 DISCOVERY 10 v. DISPUTE 11 MONTEREY BAY MILITARY Re: Dkt. No. 40 HOUSING, LLC, et al., Defendants.

14 The parties ask the Court to resolve their dispute concerning plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of defendants Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC (“MBMH”) and Michaels Management Services, LLC (“Michaels”). Dkt. No. 40. The Court finds this dispute suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

18 Plaintiffs served identical Rule 30(b)(6) depositions notices on defendants MBMH and Michaels. Dkt. No. 40, Ex. 1. Those defendants have agreed to designate witnesses to testify regarding topics 1-6 of the notices, but they object to providing testimony regarding topics 7-9, which are: 22 7. Maintenance requests regarding Plaintiffs’ prior residence at 575 Michelson Road, Monterey, California.

8. Mold, mildew, and water intrusion issues regarding Plaintiffs’ 24 prior residence at 575 Michelson Road, Monterey, California.

25 9. Remediation efforts at Plaintiffs’ prior residence at 575 Michelson Road, Monterey, California.

27 Dkt. No. 40 at 2. Defendants contend that Teresa Watkins, their former employee, is the only deposition as a non-party witness instead of seeking defendants’ testimony on these topics. Id. at 4-6. Plaintiffs demand deposition testimony that will bind MBMH and Michaels. Id. at 2-4.

3 Upon receipt of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition that describes the matters for examination with reasonable particularity, a party that is a corporation or other organizational entity must designate “one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or . . . other persons who consent to testify on its behalf” to provide testimony “about information known or reasonably available to the organization.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); see Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., 251 F.R.D. 534, 540 (D. Nev. 2008) (describing entity’s obligations in responding to Rule 30(b)(6) notice).

10 An entity may not object to providing responsive testimony on the ground that there are other superior sources of information. See, e.g., Kelly v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., No. 04CV807-AJB BGS, 2011 WL 2448276, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2011). Indeed, a party need not produce a person with the best personal knowledge about the matters designated; it must, however, produce a person with knowledge whose testimony will be binding on the party. See, e.g., Consol. Rail Corp. v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 853 F. Supp. 2d 666, 670 (E.D. Mich. 2012); Great Am. Ins., 251 F.R.D. at 540. If the party no longer employs anyone with personal knowledge about the matters for examination the party must prepare a representative—using documents, former employees, or other sources reasonably available to the organization—to testify on its behalf in the deposition. See, e.g., Buie v. D.C., 327 F.R.D. 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2018) (“[I]t is both proper and common for a 30(b)(6) witness to prepare for the deposition by reviewing the records of the organization on whose behalf he or she testifies.”)

22 Here, defendants MBMH and Michaels do not dispute that plaintiffs have described the matters for examination with reasonable particularity. Thus, they must identify and prepare a representative to testify on their behalf about all of the noticed topics, including topics 7-9.

25 Defendants must produce their designee(s) to testify regarding all topics in plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices within the next 30 days, unless the parties agree otherwise. To facilitate the scheduling of these depositions, the Court orders defendants’ counsel to disclose to representatives are available to testify so that the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of MBMH and || Michaels may be scheduled without further delay.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: May 19, 2023 6 Unig win K, □ □□□□□□ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH 7 United States Magistrate Judge

© = 17 Z 18