ADT Holdings, Inc. v. Harris, CA 2017-0328-JTL

ADT noticed a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant Ring (Bot Home Automation, Inc.) and specified Topic 37 concerning Ring confidential/trade secret information provided to Zonoff that ADT allegedly received, accessed, or reviewed.
Ring designated Dr. Michael Balog as its Rule 30(b)(6) witness for all topics, including Topic 37; Balog appeared, agreed he was the designee for Topic 37, and testified.
ADT did not contend Balog was unprepared, lacked knowledge, or was inadequate; Ring likewise made no such claim at the deposition.
After the deposition, Ring filed an amended Rule 30(b)(6) response adding Peter Gerstberger as an additional designee for Topic 37 and reallocating subject matters between Balog and Gerstberger.
ADT moved to strike Ring’s supplemental designation; the court analyzed the obligations of organizations under Court of Chancery Rule 30(b)(6) and related authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an organization may unilaterally add a supplemental Rule 30(b)(6) designee after its initial designee testifies	Ring’s post-deposition addition is improper and should be struck (ADT)	Ring effectively argued it could supplement its designation after evaluating the deposition	Court struck the supplemental designation; an organization must designate all necessary witnesses before the deposition and cannot add supplemental designees after the fact
Who controls whether additional Rule 30(b)(6) testimony is sought when an initial designee is deemed inadequate	ADT argued that because it did not find Balog inadequate, Ring cannot later supplement	Ring implied it could supplement if it believed another witness was needed to present organizational knowledge	Court held the choice to demand additional or better-prepared witnesses lies with the party noticing the deposition, not the deponent organization; the organization cannot cure by unilateral post-deposition supplementation

Calzaturficio S.C.A.R.P.A. s.p.a. v. Fabiano Shoe Co., Inc., 201 F.R.D. 33 (D. Mass. 2001) (insufficiently prepared Rule 30(b)(6) designees may warrant re-designation and further depositions)
Prokosch v. Catalina Lighting, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 633 (D. Mass. 2000) (ordering further deposition of unprepared and unresponsive Rule 30(b)(6) witness)
Gutierrez v. AT&T Broadband, LLC, 382 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2004) (courts may defer to a party’s tactical decision not to insist on better witnesses)
Resolution Tr. Corp. v. S. Union Co., Inc., 985 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1993) (affirming sanctions where 30(b)(6) witnesses lacked relevant knowledge)
Inmuno Vital, Inc. v. Telemundo Gp., Inc., 203 F.R.D. 561 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (striking Rule 30(b)(6) witness as sanction for untimely production)