Ballentine v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 2:14-cv-01584-APG-EJY

Plaintiffs challenged LVMPD arrests/citations for writing political messages in water‑soluble sidewalk chalk and alleged selective enforcement and First Amendment violations. Plaintiffs served discovery and a preservation letter early in the litigation.
Plaintiffs served Interrogatory No. 14 asking LVMPD to describe all searches and sources searched for responsive documents; LVMPD listed databases and custodians but gave limited detail about who performed searches or what was found.
Plaintiffs served a Rule 30(b)(6) notice (Fourth Amended) including Topic 23 (preservation efforts) and Topic 24 (all searches, databases, custodians, ESI collection). LVMPD designated Captain Brett Primas for those topics.
At the 30(b)(6) deposition Captain Primas had read the interrogatory answer and conferred with counsel but had not interviewed custodians, compiled or verified search documentation, and largely could not answer who conducted searches or what was found. He had personally searched only the IA Pro database.
Plaintiffs moved for sanctions under Rule 37(d) for an unprepared 30(b)(6) designee and moved to compel when LVMPD withdrew its previously disclosed FRCP 30(b)(6) trial witness (Topic 1) and declined to produce a 30(b)(6) on the Department’s defenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether LVMPD produced an adequately prepared Rule 30(b)(6) designee for Topics 23–24 (preservation and searches)	LVMPD failed to prepare Captain Primas; he could not testify about searches or preservation; sanctions and a new deposition are warranted	Captain Primas was adequately prepared; topics were vague/overbroad; no evidence of spoliation or withheld documents; further deposition would be burdensome and disproportional	Court held LVMPD violated its duty to produce a knowledgeable designee, ordered LVMPD to produce a fully prepared 30(b)(6) on Topics 23–24 within 30 days, and granted sanctions (reasonable expenses/fees) for Motion #135
Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a 30(b)(6) deposition on Topic 1 (facts/defenses) after LVMPD withdrew its prior 30(b)(6) disclosure	Plaintiffs relied on LVMPD’s earlier disclosure and are entitled to discovery from a 30(b)(6) designee on defenses	LVMPD lawfully amended its disclosures and properly declined to produce a 30(b)(6) on Topic 1; amended notices were untimely	Court declined to compel a 30(b)(6) on legal defenses; instead authorized Plaintiffs to serve contention interrogatories regarding LVMPD’s defenses and denied expense award on the motion to compel

Great American Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Vegas Const., 251 F.R.D. 534 (D. Nev. 2008) (establishes Rule 30(b)(6) duties: entity must produce and prepare designee to bind the organization)
Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. Theglobe.com, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 524 (D. Kan. 2006) (designee must provide underlying factual information even if obtained through counsel)
Marker v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D. 121 (M.D.N.C. 1989) (Rule 30(b)(6) requires designation of knowledgeable witnesses)
Starlight Int’l, Inc. v. Herlihy, 186 F.R.D. 626 (D. Kan. 1999) (Rule 30(b)(6) designee must be prepared to provide binding answers)
Sony v. Soundview Techs., 217 F.R.D. 104 (D. Conn. 2003) (failure to produce adequately prepared 30(b)(6) may warrant designation of additional witness)
Bank of N.Y. v. Meridien Bio Bank Tanzania, Ltd., 171 F.R.D. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (failure to produce adequate Rule 30(b)(6) witness can be treated as nonappearance)
Black Horse Lane Assocs. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 228 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2000) (discusses sanctions for discovery failures and nonappearance)