30(b)(6) Corporate Representative Deposition

Covers both sides of FRCP 30(b)(6) depositions: drafting topic notices and examination outlines (taking), and analyzing topics, selecting designees, and preparation (defending).

Quick Start

1. Determine role: taking or defending
2. If taking → draft topic list (Part A), then build examination outline
3. If defending → analyze noticed topics (Part B), select designees, prepare them

Part A: Taking

Topic List Drafting

Each topic must meet "reasonable particularity." See Calzaturficio v. Fabiano Shoe Co., 201 F.R.D. 33 (D. Mass. 2001) [VERIFY].

Drafting rules:

Rule	Bad	Good
Time-bound	"All communications about plaintiff"	"HR-supervisor communications re: performance, Jan 2023–Jun 2024"
Not too narrow	"The email sent March 15 at 2:47 PM"	"Communications regarding the termination decision"
Tied to claims	Topics of mere curiosity	Each topic maps to a claim element
No legal conclusions	"Whether defendant discriminated"	"Criteria applied in the promotion decision"
Carve out privilege	"Communications with counsel"	Add "excluding attorney-client privileged communications"

Standard topic categories: Org structure and reporting lines, relevant policies (creation/modification/enforcement), persons involved in key decisions, document retention and custodians, chronology of key events, financial calculations and damages basis.

Topic template:

Pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6), [Corporation] shall designate representatives
to testify regarding:

TOPIC 1: [Corporation's] organizational structure from [date] to present,
including reporting relationships and decision-making authority for
[department].

TOPIC 2: Policies and procedures regarding [subject], including creation,
modification, and enforcement from [date] to [date].

TOPIC 3: Facts and circumstances surrounding [event], including persons
involved, communications, criteria considered, and basis for the decision.

TOPIC 4: Documents relating to [subject], including creation, maintenance,
location, and any destruction or loss.

Objection risk check per topic:

Objection	Fix
Overbroad	Narrow time or scope
Vague	Add specific definitions
Burdensome	Limit custodians or sources
Seeks privileged info	Carve out attorney-client communications
Legal conclusions	Reframe to seek facts

Examination Strategy

Opening sequence (always establish):

1. Confirm designation for each topic
2. Establish preparation per topic: documents reviewed, persons interviewed, sources consulted
3. "Do you feel prepared to testify fully on this topic?" — builds inadequate-preparation record

Per-topic structure:

1. Foundation — Confirm designation and preparation
2. Substantive — Start broad ("Tell me what [Corp] knows about [topic]"), then drill with documents
3. Binding admissions — "Is it [Corp's] position that...?" / "Does [Corp] contend...?" / "What is [Corp's] explanation for...?"
4. Exhaustion — "Any other information [Corp] has on [topic] you haven't shared?"

Handling problems:

Problem	Response
"I don't know"	"Designated for this topic?" → "What did you do to find out?" → "Who would know?" → "Corp doesn't know, or you weren't prepared?"
"Outside my topics"	Read topic aloud; ask if question falls within it; may question in personal capacity
Defers to counsel	"I need you to answer, not your attorney."

Post-Deposition Use

• Summary judgment: Corporate admissions establish undisputed facts; corporation cannot easily contradict. Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, 469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006) [VERIFY]
• Trial: Party admission; read to jury; impeach if trial position differs
• Discovery motions: Failed preparation supports motion to compel re-deposition or FRCP 37(d) sanctions

Part B: Defending

Topic Analysis

Assess each noticed topic:

Factor	Question
Clarity	Reasonable particularity?
Scope	Limited in time and subject?
Relevance	Tied to claims or defenses?
Burden	Preparation difficulty?
Privilege	Seeks privileged info?

Response options: Accept, accept with clarification, narrow (propose limits), object but prepare (avoid sanctions), object and refuse (be ready to litigate).

Output — topic analysis matrix:

Topic	Assessment	Recommendation	Designee
1	Clear, relevant	Accept	[Name]
2	Overbroad	Narrow to [dates]	[Name]
3	Privilege issue	Object; testify on non-privileged aspects	[Name]

Designee Selection

Criteria: Topic knowledge, preparation capacity, demeanor, availability, authority to speak for corporation.

Option	Pros	Cons
Most knowledgeable person	Minimal prep	May be poor witness or very senior
Professional corporate witness	Composed, experienced	Extensive prep needed
Multiple designees	Deeper per-topic expertise	Gap risks, coordination complexity

Single designee avoids gaps but requires broader prep. Multiple allow depth but demand clear delineation — every topic must map to a designee with no gaps.

Designee Preparation

The designee must know the corporation's collective knowledge, not just personal knowledge.

Per-topic checklist:

• Documents to review
• People to interview and what they know
• Key facts to master
• Problem areas and how to address them
• Corporation's position on each sub-issue

Preparation sessions:

Session	Focus
1: Foundation	Walk topics; identify gaps; assign doc review and interviews
2: Synthesis	Test knowledge per topic; establish corporate positions; fill gaps
3: Practice	Mock exam; binding admission questions; "I don't know" handling

"I don't know" coaching:

• Acceptable: "The corporation does not have information about that" (after adequate prep)
• Acceptable: "I've reviewed all available documents and interviewed relevant personnel, and the records don't reflect that"
• Problematic: Bare "I don't know" without explaining preparation efforts — signals inadequate preparation
• Problematic: "I wasn't told about that" — same problem

Defending at Deposition

• Preserve objections: Form, beyond noticed topics, assumes facts, calls for speculation
• Instruct not to answer (rare): Attorney-client privilege, work product, questions clearly outside all topics and personal knowledge
• Do not: Coach during breaks, make speaking objections that signal answers, obstruct legitimate questioning
• Post-deposition: Debrief witness, assess errata needs, evaluate re-deposition risk

Pitfalls

• Test every topic against objection categories before finalizing the notice
• Binding admissions are the primary asset when taking — always frame as corporate positions, not individual opinions
• Duty to prepare when defending is absolute — QBE Ins. v. Jorda Enters., 277 F.R.D. 676 (S.D. Fla. 2012) [VERIFY]
• State equivalents vary (e.g., Cal. CCP § 2025.230); always check local rules
• Privilege carve-outs must be explicit in both topic drafting and objection responses
• If using multiple designees, map every topic to a designee with no gaps