Tenn. R. Civ. Pro. 30.02(6) addresses the law of taking the deposition of a person designated to speak on behalf of a corporation or other entity. There is very little case law in Tennessee discussing the rule.
There are lots of federal court cases discussing a substantially similar Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6).
And here is one of the best – QBE Insurance Corp. v. Jorda Enterprises, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676 (2012). Section 4 of the court’s opinion says “If the case law outlining the guiding principles of 30(b) (6) depositions could be summarized into a de facto Bible governing corporate depositions, then the litigation commandments and fundamental passages about pre-trial discovery would likely contain the following advice” and then states 39 of those “guiding principles.”
I will share the first four of principles, but have uploaded the opinion so that you can see all 39 of them.
1. The rule’s purpose is to streamline the discovery process. In particular, the rule serves a unique function in allowing a specialized form of deposition. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Vegas
Constr. Co., Inc., 251 F.R.D. 534, 539 (D.Nev.2008).2. The rule gives the corporation being deposed more control by allowing it to designate and prepare a witness to testify on the corporation’s behalf. United States v. Taylor, 166
F.R.D. 356, 361 (M.D.N.C.1996).3. It is a discovery device designed to avoid the bandying by corporations where individual officers or employees disclaim knowledge of facts clearly known to the corporation. Great
Am., 251 F.R.D. at 539; Taylor, 166 F.R.D. at 361.4. Therefore, one purpose is to curb any temptation by the corporation to shunt discovering party from “pillar to post” by presenting deponents who each disclaim knowledge of facts known to someone in the corporation. Great Am., 251 F.R.D. at 539. Cf. Ierardi v. Lorillard, Inc., No. 90–7049, 1991 WL 66799, *2 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 15, 1991), at *2 (without the rule, a corporation could “hide behind the alleged ‘failed’ memories of its employees”).
Id. at 687-88.
So, what good is an opinion from a federal district court interpreting a federal rule of civil procedure when one is researching a point of Tennessee civil procedure? “[W]hen interpreting our own rules of civil procedure, we consult and are guided by the interpretation that has been applied to comparable federal rules of procedure.” Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257, 268–69 (Tenn. 2015) (citations omitted). This holding was affirmed in Hussey v Woods, 538 S.W.3d 476, 486 fn. 7 (Tenn. 2018).
For an idea of how at least two lawyers who represents corporations looks at these depositions, review this article. Here is another such article from a lawyer who represents the trucking industry. Both articles are filled with citations to additional case law on the topic.
This is a great opinion to help you understand the power of Rule 30.02(6) depositions. It will also help your trial judge.