Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on January 19, 2006 (Docket No. 889). Defendants

responded by letter brief dated January 25, 2005 (Docket No. 898). These briefs were filed as

replacements to the original briefing on this dispute, which was submitted in early December 2005

(Docket Nos. 782, 791).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BOWOTO, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CHEVRONTEXACO CORP., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 99-02506 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

FURTHER TESTIMONY

By letter briefs, the parties bring before the Court a discovery dispute in this matter.1 Plaintiffs

seek to compel further testimony from defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). For

the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART plaintiffs’ motion.

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) allows a party to take the deposition of a corporation.

Under the rule, the propounding party must “describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which

examination is requested.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). The corporation must then designate one or more

individuals to testify on its behalf. Id. The corporation has a duty to educate its witnesses so they are

prepared to fully answer the questions posed at the deposition. See In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 216

F.R.D. 168, 172 (D.D.C. 2003). A 30(b)(6) witness, however, is not required to answer questions

outside the scope of the matters described in the notice. See King v. Pratt & Whitney, 161 F.R.D. 475,

476 (S.D. Fla. 1995).

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 958 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Plaintiffs in this case noticed 30(b)(6) depositions of Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) and

Chevron Nigeria Limited (“CNL”) in which they described a number of general topics to be covered.

In response, Chevron and CNL produced as witnesses Jim Simpson and Godfrey Etikerentse,

respectively. Plaintiffs now move to compel further testimony from Chevron and CNL, arguing that

neither witness could sufficiently answer questions on the topics described in the 30(b)(6) notice.

1. Godfrey Etikerentse

Etikerentse was formerly a general counsel to CNL. CNL produced Etikerentse to testify about

a number of topics concerning CNL and its operations in Nigeria. Plaintiffs assert that Etikerentse was

unprepared to testify about the following topics.

A. Topic 5(b)

Topic 5(b) sought “[a] big picture understanding of why CNL entered into Cooperation

Agreements with other Chevron entities and the resulting benefits for agreements in effect during 1996-

1999.” Richardson Decl., Exh. N., at 2. Plaintiffs contend that Etikerentse was unprepared to fully

discuss a cooperation agreement between CNL, Chevron International Trading Company (“CIT”), and

Chevron Oil Company Nigeria Limited (“COCNL”) that was in effect during 1996-1999. Plaintiffs also

contend that Etikerentse was unaware of whether similar cooperation agreements existed between CNL

and other Chevron entities. Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ questions were too specific to fall within

the “big picture” scope of the 30(b)(6) notice.

Although many of plaintiffs’ questions at Etikerentse’s deposition were more detailed than

necessary for a “big picture understanding” of the benefits CNL derived from the cooperation

agreement, the Court finds that Etikerentse was not fully prepared to testify regarding two matters.

First, the Court finds that Etikerentse could not adequately identify other cooperation agreements to

which CNL was a party during the relevant time frame. Second, the Court finds that Etikerentse could

not adequately answer questions regarding Chevron Transport Company’s role in the CNL-CIT-COCNL

cooperation agreement.

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 958 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion with respect to Topic 5(b). Plaintiffs may

reopen the Etikerentse deposition for the limited purpose of questioning him regarding the subjects

identified above.

B. Topic 5(c)

Topic 5(c) sought “[a] big picture understanding of why CNL entered into Counsel and Service

Agreements with other Chevron entities and the resulting benefits for agreements in effect during 1996-

1999.” Richardson Decl., Exh. N, at 2. Plaintiffs once again argue that Etikerentse’s testimony was

deficient. Defendants have provided no argument to the contrary.

From the Court’s review of the transcript, it appears that Etikerentse was not adequately prepared

to answer questions concerning the existence of other counsel and service agreements that CNL was a

party to. Further, the Court finds that Etikerentse could not adequately testify regarding the benefits that

CNL derived from a counsel and service agreement it had in place with Chevron Overseas Petroleum,

Inc. Etikerentse’s description of the benefit to CNL was limited to “the grant to it of non-technical

ability that’s . . . unavailable in Nigeria.” Richardson Decl., Exh. U, at 106.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion with respect to Topic 5(c). 

C. Topic 6

Topic 6 was defined as: “A high level overview of the impact of shipping quotas on production,

costs, profits, decisions about whether to shut-in production and the amount of oil produced and

exported for 1996-1999.” Richardson Decl., Exh. N, at 2. Etikerentse testified that he did not know if

any shut-ins had occurred during the relevant time period. Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ questions

were beyond the scope of the deposition because they concerned “shut-ins without regard to the cause.”

The Court disagrees. Knowledge of whether shut-ins occurred at all is necessary to provide any

meaningful overview of the impact of shipping quotas on shut-ins. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

plaintiffs’ motion with respect to Topic 6.

2. Jim Simpson

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 958 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

Chevron produced Jim Simpson to testify concerning Chevron’s method of accounting for

contributions from CNL. Simpson was formerly an employee of Chevron Business Development, Inc.,

a division of Chevron USA. Plaintiffs argue that Simpson’s testimony was inadequate in four areas.

A. Topic 7(a)

Topic 7(a) concerned “[h]ow income, if any, from CNL was reflected on Chevron Corporation’s

books during the period 1996-1999.” Richardson Decl., Exh. O, at 2. Plaintiffs argue that the witness

was unprepared to fully answer questions on this topic. Plaintiffs, however, have provided no evidence

to the Court in support of their accusation. Accordingly, their motion to compel is DENIED with

respect to Topic 7(a).

B. Topic 7(b)

Topic 7(b) requested “a general description of the process for doing the types of realigning of

the Intercompany Account Balances reflected on C17094-95, a general explanation of what the matters

reflected on those documents mean, and an example of how the process works during the time period

1996-1999.” Richardson Decl., Exh. O, at 2.

Plaintiffs have established that Simpson could not adequately answer questions related to this

topic. Although defendants argue that they have cured any deficiency by providing a witness named

Mike Kuba for deposition on December 13, 2005, defendants have not provided the Court with any

excerpts from Kuba’s deposition, nor have plaintiffs’ withdrawn their motion. Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion with regard to Topic 7(b). 

C. Topic 7(c)

Topic 7(c) requested information concerning “[c]ontribution during 1996-1999 of CNL to

Chevron Investments and Chevron Corporation based on annual figures, with focus on larger foreign

subsidiaries. How the overall numbers compare between such subsidiaries, and how its overall

profitability based on contributions to Chevron Investments and Chevron Corporation, compares relative

to other foreign subsidiaries.” Richardson Decl., Exh. O, at 2. Plaintiffs argue that Simpson could only

answer questions about the Nigerian SBU, and could not answer specific questions about CNL.

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 958 Filed 02/07/06 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

Defendants counter that “Chevron does not maintain records of the relative annual contributions of its

subsidiaries.” In his deposition, however, Simpson clearly testified that such records could be

constructed. Thus, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion with respect to Topic 7(c).

D. Topic 7(d)

Finally, Topic 7(d) concerned “[c]ontribution of CNL to Chevron Investments and Chevron

Corporation during times of ‘low crude prices’ in the period 1996-1999, based on annual figures.”

Richardson Decl., Exh. O, at 2. Plaintiffs complain that the witness Chevron produced failed to

ascertain what periods during 1996 to 1999 constituted “times of low crude prices.” Plaintiffs also

complain that the witness could not explain “why income from the Nigerian SBU was significantly

higher than other SBU’s in 1998 and 1999.”

The Court agrees with defendants’ argument that the latter question is clearly outside the scope

of the deposition notice. It requires the witness to possess a familiarity with the contribution of Chevron

subsidiaries other than CNL. As to the former question, the deposition transcript reveals defendants

clearly had an idea of what was meant by “times of low crude prices,” and that the witness answered

questions about such times. See Richardson Decl., Exh. V, at 416-19. Thus, the Court DENIES

plaintiffs’ motion with respect to Topic 7(d).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART

plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Docket No. 889). Plaintiffs may reopen the depositions of Chevron

witnesses Etikerentse and Simpson in accordance with the above discussion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 958 Filed 02/07/06 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 958 Filed 02/07/06 Page 6 of 6