Rule 30(b)(6) was overdue for an overhaul. It is too often the case that parties provide a list of generalized topics that cause discovery disputes that could easily be avoided by adding teeth to the meet and confer obligations. I agree with the author here that requiring an in-person meet and confer (or videoconference) will cause parties to be more reasonable (it is much easier to write an unreasonable email then make an unreasonable statement directly to your adversary). People have become much more confortable with videoconfercing in 2020, which should increase the likelihood that the parties will meet "in person" to resove their differences BEFORE the deposition.
| less than a minute read
30(b)(6) - Overdue for an Overhaul
Get in touch
Get in touch
The new requirement for Rule 30(b)(6) straightforwardly requires good faith exchanges about the list of topics to be addressed at the entity deposition. In order to increase the chances that such exchanges will produce actual agreements, it is wise to actually meet and confer in person, or at least virtually by telephone or videoconference.
Get in touch
Get in touch
/Passle/5f7c32f353548911309c42df/MediaLibrary/Images/2024-11-26-19-02-08-026-67461b30530ccc05630285ca.jpg)
With intangible assets representing over 90% of an AI company’s value, an effective intellectual property strategy is essential to...
Latest Insights
/Passle/5f7c32f353548911309c42df/SearchServiceImages/2024-12-20-06-29-00-813-67650eac8b43d2162bbe0c4b.jpg)
/Passle/5f7c32f353548911309c42df/SearchServiceImages/2024-12-19-16-52-34-384-67644f522e5b24efe2d24c81.jpg)
/Passle/5f7c32f353548911309c42df/SearchServiceImages/2024-12-17-22-28-22-746-6761fb064f363822418cba43.jpg)
/Passle/5f7c32f353548911309c42df/SearchServiceImages/2024-12-16-16-00-43-722-67604eabe47d4e3f62ee4dc0.jpg)