Opinion ID: 1689155
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Subpoena.

Text: ¶ 34. Illinois Central's argument appears to rely on the theory that a subpoena is required for all deponents other than Rule 30(b)(6) deponents. Rule 30(b)(6) allows a party to name a private corporation as the deponent, and in such a case, the corporation must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents who are prepared to speak on behalf of the corporation as to specific matters reasonably specified by the deposing party. Miss. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). ¶ 35. Illinois Central correctly points out that, except where the employee has been designated by the corporation under Rule 30(b)(6), an employee is treated as any other witness, and his or her presence must be obtained by subpoena. 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 2d § 2103, at 37 (1994). However, Illinois Central ignores the next paragraph which notes that a subpoena is not required for a corporate employee who qualifies as an officer, director or managing agent of a party-corporation, even if he has not been designated as the 30(b)(6)deponent. Id. See also United States v. Afram Lines (USA), Ltd., 159 F.R.D. 408, 413 (S.D.N.Y.1994)(holding that a corporate employee or agent who does not qualify as an officer, director, or managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice); Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. J.W. Cartage Co., 1994 WL 416978,  (N.D.Ill.1994)(concluding that: No subpoena is required for taking the deposition of a corporate party when the opposing party seeks that deposition through officers who will be deposed on the corporation's behalf); Plantation-Simon Inc. v. Bahloul, 596 So.2d 1159, 1162 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1992)(holding that a party has the right to take a deposition of an officer, director or managing agent of a corporation or partnership or government agency, already named and served as a party, by simple notice and without the necessity of serving the official with a witness subpoena). ¶ 36. Thus, the heirs were permitted to depose Illinois Central executives without the necessity of a subpoena, provided those executives fell under the rubric of officers, directors or managing agents of Illinois Central. While the identify of an officer or a director is generally clear, the question of whether a deponent is a managing agent is answered pragmatically on an ad hoc basis, with the federal courts applying the following three-part test: (1) Is the individual to be deposed invested by the corporation with general powers to exercise his discretion and judgment in dealing with corporate matters? (2) Can the individual be depended upon to carry out the employer's direction to give testimony at the demand of a party engaged in litigation with the employer? (3) Can the individual be expected to identify with the interests of the corporation rather than those of the other parties? 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, supra, at 39. See also Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Webster, 802 F.2d 1448, 1452 (D.C.Cir.1986)(concluding that it is a question of fact as to whether a particular employee may be considered a managing agent of a corporation); Reed Paper Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Distrib. Co., 144 F.R.D. 2, 4 (D.Me.1992)(citing Wright & Miller); Terry v. Modern Woodmen of America, 57 F.R.D. 141, 143 (W.D.Mo.1972)(applying three-part test); Tomingas v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 45 F.R.D. 94, 96-97 (S.D.N.Y.1968)(applying three-part test and holding that any doubt as to whether deponent was managing agent should be resolved in favor of examining party). ¶ 37. Illinois Central did not argue before the circuit court that the deponents were not managing agents and does not argue so now. Rather, Illinois Central limits its argument on appeal to whether the deponents could be deposed without subpoena. Thus, this issue is waived and we further find Illinois Central's argument unconvincing. We furthermore adopt the three-part test of Professors Wright, Miller & Marcus, for determining whether a corporate employee is a managing agent.