Episode 124 -Can You Issue a 30(b)(6)-Style Trial Subpoena, Addressed Simply to “Corporate Representative with Knowledge On (Listed Topics)"?

Can you issue a trial subpoena under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (or its state equivalents) not to a named person, but instead to a 30(b)(6)-style "Corporate Representative" and attach a list of topics? In this episode, Jim Garrity outlines the leading cases on point and discusses the arguments pro and con. The Show Notes below include a list of the cases upon which this episode is based, as well as a cite to an actual subpoena issued in this manner and the Motion to Quash that the subpoena triggered. (REMINDER: If you don't see all the cases, click through to the page that hosts our podcast. Not all sites allow lengthy show notes, but you'll always find the complete Show Notes on our home page.)

SHOW NOTES

Legion Sys., LLC v. Valiant Glob. Def. Servs., Inc., No. 8:20-CV-2321-KKM-MRM, 2023 WL 4686245, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2023) (containing thorough analysis of issue, concluding “These procedures in Rule 30(b)(6) are applicable to depositions and do not apply to trial-witness subpoenas. Concluding otherwise would allow Rule 30 to expand the meaning of Rule 45 without any textual support for doing so. Hill v. Homeward Residential, Inc., 799 F.3d 544, 553 (6th Cir. 2015).)

Defendant’s Motion To Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoena To Appear And Testify At A Hearing Or Trial In A Civil Action. CM/ECF Doc. 153 (on Pacer.gov), Legion Sys., LLC v. Valiant Glob. Def. Servs., Inc., No. 8:20-CV-2321-KKM-MRM (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2023)

[Example] Subpoena to Appear and Testify at A Trial or Hearing in a Civil Action (directed to “Corporate Representatives of [Defendant] with the most knowledge concerning the matters identified in the attached Exhibit “A” c/o [Counsel for Defendant],” Legion Sys., LLC v. Valiant Glob. Def. Servs., Inc., No. 8:20-CV-2321-KKM-MRM, 2023 WL 4686245, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2023), CM/ECF Doc. 153-1 (attaching FRCP 30(b)(6)-style topic list as Exhibit A to rule 45 subpoena)

Bd. of Regents Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., No. CV 18-392-GBW, 2023 WL 346243, at *2 (D. Del. Jan. 20, 2023) (“Out-of-Circuit caselaw, while more on point, has been inconsistent. In 1987, the Ninth Circuit held that a district court did not abuse its discretion when the court quashed a subpoena under Rule 45 directed towards a corporation because it had “discovered no authority ... for the proposition that the Rule 30 standards [that permit subpoenas upon a corporation] should govern Rule 45 subpoenas of witnesses.” Donoghue v. Orange Cnty., 848 F.2d 926, 932 (9th Cir. 1987). In 2013, a California district court distinguished the Ninth Circuit's ruling as having “emphasized a trial court's discretion” and as coming prior to 1991 amendments to Rule 45. See HTC Corp. v. Tech. Properties Ltd., 2013 WL 12166376, at *2 & n.9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2013). That case relied, in part, see id., on a 2013 case, Conyers, in which a district court also required a corporate party to “comply with [a Rule 45] subpoena by producing its corporate representative at trial[,]” Conyers v. Balboa Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2450108, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2013). However, the Sixth Circuit, in 2015, appeared to reject the Conyers decision and stated that a party which seeks to have a corporate representative testify at trial has two options: “subpoena a corporate witness who either ‘resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person’ in [the state]” or “take[ ] a deposition of a corporate officer during discovery for its use at trial.” Hill v. Homeward Residential, Inc., 799 F.3d 544, 553 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(1)(B)). The Sixth Circuit, however, held that the “subpoena failed several aspects” of Rule 45, and concluded that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing [Rule 45] as written.” Id. at 552–53")

Hill v. Nat'l R. R. Passenger Corp., No. CIV. A. 88-5277, 1989 WL 87621, at *1 (E.D. La. July 28, 1989) (“Rule 30(b)(6) specifically applies to the deposition of a corporation. Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the proper procedure by which a person may be compelled to testify at a trial. There is no provision allowing the use of the 30(b)(6)-type designation of areas of inquiry or allowing service on a corporation through an agent for service of process in order to compel a particular person, who may be a corporate employee outside the subpoena power of the court, to testify at the trial. Further, plaintiff has not pointed the Court to any specific authority allowing such a procedure nor has the Court found any authority supporting the plaintiff's position. Accordingly, for the above and foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion of Amtrak to quash the subpoena directed to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation be hereby GRANTED and the subpoena is hereby QUASHED.”)

Hill v. Homeward Residential, Inc., 799 F.3d 544, 553 (6th Cir. 2015) (finding that rules must be enforced as written, and rejecting what it called an effort to take a 30(b)(6) deposition in the middle of trial; held“Hill tries to avoid these conclusions by urging us to “temper[ ]” the “technical” Rules by interpreting them “through the lens of common sense.” Appellant Br. 24. But these rules were not made to be “tempered”; they were made to be “technical”—from the specific amount of fees tendered, to the court issuing the subpoena, to the geographic scope of the request. It is not surprising, then, that Hill can point to only one case that supports his position, Conyers v. Balboa Ins. Co., No. 8:12–CV–30–T–33EAJ, 2013 WL 2450108, at *1 (M.D.Fla. June 5, 2013) (using Rule 30 to expand Rule 45). Even if that case persuaded us that the Rules should be modified by judicial fiat, the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing them as written”)

Smith v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 302 F.R.D. 688, 694 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (“Here, the use of a Rule 30(b)(6) notice upon unnamed Defendant corporative representatives, for designated testimony at trial, is both improper and ultimately unnecessary. Defendant must have a corporate representative at trial and certainly Plaintiff can call on that representative as a witness in his case in chief. By doing so, Plaintiff can obtain the testimony he now seeks through this notice. But what he cannot do is use a discovery device—a Rule 30(b)(6) notice—under the guise of a trial subpoena. The discovery period in the case is over and has been over since December 2013.”)

Conyers v. Balboa Ins. Co., No. 8:12-CV-30-T-33EAJ, 2013 WL 2450108, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2013) (“Thus, upon due consideration of the parties' arguments and the Court's evaluation of Rule 45, the Court determines that Balboa must comply with the subpoena by producing its corporate representative at trial and should promptly identify this individual so that Plaintiffs may pay the relevant fees associated with the corporate representative's travel and attendance at trial”)

Williams v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., No. 3:05CV479J33MCR, 2006 WL 2598758, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2006) (“As such, the Court holds that the corporate representative should be considered a “party” regardless of whether he/she is an officer of the company and should be produced even if he/she resides outside the 100 mile limit.^”)

Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas, 262 F.R.D. 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“A different outcome is necessitated, however, for the subpoenas served on the corporate parties themselves. The Bondholders' objection to these subpoenas was raised only in vague terms in their moving papers and not fully addressed until reply briefing and subsequent letters to the Court.⁷ Regardless of whether this argument was raised in a timely manner (see infra n. 9) there is no basis under the 100–mile rule to quash the subpoenas seeking testimony of the Bondholders' corporate representatives. The Bondholders, as parties to this action, affirmatively have taken advantage of the benefits of this forum, and the Court has the power to require these parties to produce corporate representatives to testify on their behalf at trial.”)

HTC Corp. v. Tech. Properties Ltd., No. 5:08-CV-00882-PSG, 2013 WL 12166376, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2013) (noting defendant’s argument that “. . . Conyers v. Balboa Ins. Co., a recent case from the Middle District of Florida [is] persuasive authority that this court should deny a motion to quash a trial subpoena directed at an unnamed corporate representative;” concluding that “Rule 45 has indeed undergone both substantive and cosmetic revision since that opinion issued in 1987.⁹ Having reviewed Conyers as well as other more recent decisions addressing a subpoena seeking corporate testimony on listed topics from a third party located within the state of the court, the court finds that such a subpoena may be appropriately served without running afoul of the limits of Rule 45”)