At least in theory, 30(b)(6) embodies the aim of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, set forth in Rule 1: to “secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” The rule allows depositions of organizations through witnesses designated by the deposed organizations. Contrast this with Rule 30(b)(1) depositions, where there’s no requirement that the witness prepare for deposition. Indeed, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say that most 30(b)(1) witnesses are directed to get comfortable with the Holy Trinity of deposition responses: Yes. No. I don’t know. By contrast, 30(b)(6) offers a way around such stonewalling, providing that witnesses be sufficiently knowledgeable (on their own or via a homework assignment) about relevant issues. Essentially, it allows lawyers squaring off against organizations to demand straightforward answers to straightforward questions from witnesses who are commanded to be prepared to testify without evasion.
Why focus on this tool of discovery now? In the current litigation environment, where most in-house counsel surveys predict a substantial uptick in lawsuit filings and, at the same time, greater insistence on tight budgeting and value-oriented billing, litigation tools that maximize efficiency have never been more in demand. And leading the pack is (or should be) the 30(b)(6) deposition.
