Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_04-cv-00634/USCOURTS-alsd-2_04-cv-00634-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD PHILLIPS, et al., :

 :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION 04-00634-CG-B

 :

v. :

 :

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., :

INC., et al., :

 :

Defendant. :

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Richard

Phillips and Deda Phillips’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 45). In

their motion, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants American Honda

Motor Company, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Honda R & D Americas,

Inc., Honda of American Manufacturing, Inc. and Honda North

America, Inc. failed to attend their 30(b)(6) depositions because

a single witness was produced, on behalf of all the Defendants,

and that witness is not an employee of any of the Defendants, and

does not speak English. According to Plaintiffs, each Defendant

should be required to produce a separate English-speaking

deponent for a 30(b)(6) deposition. Plaintiffs also assert that

Defendants did not timely produce documents responsive to

Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(5) production notice, and that Plaintiffs

Case 2:04-cv-00634-CG-B Document 59 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 6
2

should be reimbursed for the $3,381.83 in expenses incurred by

their counsel in connection with the 30(b)(6) deposition. 

Defendants assert that they have fully complied with their

discovery obligations. Specifically, Defendants assert that

Plaintiffs served the same 30(b)(6) deposition notice (covering

the same topics) on all of the Defendants, and scheduled the

deposition for the one day. According to Defendants, they

designated Mr. Hirotake Takahashi to testify on behalf of all the

Defendants because he is the individual most knowledgeable

regarding the design of the ATV at issue, and Plaintiffs have yet

to identify any deficiencies in his deposition testimony.

Defendants further contend that under rule 30(b)(6), they are not

required to produce an “English-speaking” deponent especially

where two interpreters were provided at Defendants’ expense.

Finally, Defendants assert that they fully complied with

Plaintiffs’ rule 30(b)(5) production notice by producing

responsive documents and lodging written objections to those

documents which they deemed improper.

Based upon a review of Plaintiffs’ motion and Defendants’

response in opposition, the undersigned hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’

motion. Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows

any party to request the deposition of any other party to the

litigation by serving a notice of deposition upon that party.

Case 2:04-cv-00634-CG-B Document 59 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 6
3

The party to be deposed can be a natural person under Rule

30(b)(1) or a corporation under Rule 30(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P.

30. Under the rules, a corporation may be deposed in two ways.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Midland Rare Coin

Exchange, Inc., et al., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16939, *5 (S.D.

Fla. July 28, 1999). “The first choice is to notice the

deposition of the corporation by a particular officer, director,

or managing agent pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) . . . .” Id.

(emphasis in original). “At such a deposition, the testimony is

of the corporation[,] and if the corporation is a party, the

testimony may be used at trial by an adverse party for any

purpose.” Id. “The second choice, is to notice the deposition

of the corporation without specifically naming the person to be

deposed[,] but listing in the notice a description . . . with

reasonable particularity of the matters on which [ ] examination

is requested . . . .” Id. at *5-6 (citing to Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(b)(6)). Under this second choice, the corporation “shall

designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents or

other persons who consent to testify on its behalf . . . .” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (emphasis added). The person or persons so

designated “shall testify to matters known or reasonably

available to the organization.” Id.

Case 2:04-cv-00634-CG-B Document 59 Filed 06/27/05 Page 3 of 6
1This is not meant to suggest that parties are limited to

one selection. Parties may elect to utilize both during the

course of discovery.

2In fact, where a case involves a product that was

designed in a foreign country, it is quite likely that the

person with the most knowledge regarding the design of the

product will speak the primary language utilized in the

foreign county.

4

In this case, Plaintiffs opted for the second option1 thereby

placing the burden on Defendants to identify one or more

officers, directors, managing agents or other persons to testify

on their behalf regarding the matters on which examination was

sought. While Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Takahashi is not

employed by any of the Defendants, Rule 30(b)(6) does not contain

any such requirement, nor have Plaintiffs directed the Court to

any cases in which courts have imposed that requirement.

Similarly, there is nothing in the rule that requires a

corporation to produce an English-speaking deponent. Instead,

the rule obligates the company to produce a deponent who can give

complete, knowledgeable and binding answers on behalf of the

corporation2. Plaintiffs herein have not asserted that Mr.

Takahashi was not knowledgeable or that he was unable to

understand and provide answers (through the interpreters) to the

questions posed during his deposition. In the absence of any

such deficiencies, Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendants did not

fulfill their obligations under Rule 30(b)(6) is not supported by

Case 2:04-cv-00634-CG-B Document 59 Filed 06/27/05 Page 4 of 6
3The Rule 16(b) Scheduling Orders expressly provide that

any discovery motion shall quote in full (1) each . . . .

request for production to which the motion is addressed . . .

. and (2) the response or the objection and grounds therefor,

if any, as stated by the opposing party (Docs. 28 and 33). 

4While it appears that the request was originally served

on November 10, 2004, it was a nullity as formal discovery did

not commence until after entry of the Rule 16 (b) Scheduling

Order on January 5, 2005.

5

the record.

Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendants did not fulfill their

obligations under Rule 30(b)(5) is likewise unsupported by the

record. First of all, Plaintiffs have failed to direct the Court

to the specific production requests that are in issue3; thus, the

Court has no way of determining whether Defendants’ objections to

the requests were proper. Additionally, to the extent that

Plaintiffs contend that the documents were not produced in a

timely manner, the record suggests otherwise. According to

Plaintiffs, a Rule 30(b)(5) request for documents was served on

counsel for Defendants on March 28, 20054; however, Defendants

did not produce responsive documents until the eve of the

30(b)(6) deposition, or April 20, 2005. Rule 30(b)(5) provides

that a production request to a party deponent must be in

compliance with Rule 34, which states, in pertinent part: that

the party upon whom a production request is served “shall serve

a written response within 30 days after the service of the

Case 2:04-cv-00634-CG-B Document 59 Filed 06/27/05 Page 5 of 6
6

request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Under

operation of the rules, Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’

production request was due 30 days after service, which in this

instance, was April 27, 2005. Because it appears that

Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ production request was served

before this date, it was timely filed.

For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned concludes

that Plaintiffs’ motion is not supported by the record evidence.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED in its entirety.

DONE this 24th day of June,2005.

 s/Sonja F. Bivins 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00634-CG-B Document 59 Filed 06/27/05 Page 6 of 6