1 / 8

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Midwest Division, Inc

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Midwest Division, Inc. 2007 WL 1054279 (D. Kan. 2007) April 9, 2007 Joe Dernbach. Parties. Hartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC (Plaintiff) Midwest Division, Inc (Defendants)

tress
Download Presentation

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Midwest Division, Inc

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Heartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC v.Midwest Division, Inc 2007 WL 1054279 (D. Kan. 2007) April 9, 2007 Joe Dernbach

  2. Parties • Hartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC (Plaintiff) • Midwest Division, Inc (Defendants) • Filed a joint motion to compel Heartland to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness with knowledge of its production of documents and data

  3. Facts • Defendants gave Hartland notice on Nov. 14, 2006 and identified 55 separate topics for deposition • The court allowed the D to split the notice deposition topics into two Rule 30(b)(6) depositions • 11 deposition hours over 2 days for topics 1- 17 • 24 hours over 4 days for topics 18-55 • The D commenced their deposition of topics 1-17 on Nov 28, 2006 • Heartland had Ms. Holley be the Rule 30(b)(6) representative who was unable to answer all the question presented to her • The D’s motion (in this case) concerns only whether Heartland has complied with the Requirements of Rule 30(b)(6) with respect to its Designated representative’s responses to topics 8, 9, 10, 16, and 17

  4. Rules that Apply • Rule 30(b)(6) • Notice or Subpoena Directed to an organization • (requesting party) must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination • The named organization must designate a person(s) to testify on its behalf • The person must testify about information known or reasonable available to the organization • Rule 26(b)(1) • discovery into any matter, not privileged and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

  5. Analysis • The court explains rule 30(b)(6) but also places emphasis on the fact that the corporation must prepare their testifying representatives so that they may give a complete, knowledgeable and binding answer on behalf of the corporation. • The rule implies that the rep. reviews all matters known or reasonably available in preparation for the deposition • For purpose of making the deposition meaningful and to prevent sandbagging the opponent

  6. Issues • Did the D’s notice to topics 1-17 describe matters with reasonable particularity? • If so did Heartland complete its duty to adequately prepare a knowledgeable witness with respect to the topics described in the notice? • In this case the question surrounds only topics 8,9, 10,16, and 17.

  7. Conclusion • D did describe the matters with reasonable particularity • Provided specific examples of what the D was looking for • Heartland however did not provide a knowledge able person with respects to topics 10, 16, 17 • Court ruled that D may conduct an additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on topics 10,16, an17 • Deposition is limited to questions 1,2,4,5,and 6 (page 278-79) • Deposition will be limited to 6 hours in duration

  8. Class Discussion • Why wasn’t Heartland required to compensate the defendant for the extra deposition time required? • Is it to high of a burden to require Heartland to prepare their spokesperson for such an in-depth deposition?

More Related