Matrix Group, The v. Innerlight Holdings, 2:11-cv-00987

Plaintiff The Matrix Group, LLC sued defendants InnerLight Holdings, Inc. and InnerLight Worldwide, Inc.; discovery dispute referred to magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Defendants moved for a protective order to preclude Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of corporate designees Kevin Brogan and Heber Maughan, asserting Plaintiff already took lengthy individual depositions of those men under Rule 30(b)(1) in August 2012.
Defendants agreed to be bound by Brogan’s and Maughan’s prior testimony and argued a 30(b)(6) deposition would be duplicative and cumulative.
Plaintiff opposed, arguing prior individual depositions do not bar a Rule 30(b)(6) designation and that corporate-designee testimony differs from individual testimony.
The magistrate judge reviewed Rule 30(b)(6) principles: a 30(b)(6) designee testifies on behalf of the corporation and binds it, so such depositions serve a distinct purpose from individual depositions.
The court found no specific evidence that the noticed 30(b)(6) topics were duplicative of prior testimony and denied the protective order, allowing the 30(b)(6) depositions to proceed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior Rule 30(b)(1) depositions of individuals preclude subsequent Rule 30(b)(6) depositions	30(b)(1) testimony does not insulate a corporation from 30(b)(6) testimony; corporate-designee testimony is distinct	Prior individual testimony covered the same topics; requiring 30(b)(6) is cumulative and unnecessary	Denied: prior individual depositions do not automatically bar 30(b)(6) depositions
Whether the noticed 30(b)(6) topics are impermissibly cumulative	N/A — Plaintiff seeks corporate testimony on designated topics	30(b)(6) would duplicate hundreds of pages of earlier testimony and is unnecessary	Court required specific evidence of overlap; none shown, so 30(b)(6) allowed
Whether Rule 30(b)(6) violates the rule against multiple depositions of the same person	30(b)(6) testimony represents the corporation, not the individual, so it is permissible	Rule is not intended to authorize two depositions of the same individual	Court: Rule 30(b)(6) contemplates corporate-designated testimony that can differ from individual testimony; two depositions are not per se barred
Whether defendants should be bound by prior individual testimony in lieu of producing corporate-designees	N/A — Plaintiff seeks binding corporate testimony	Defendants offered to be bound by prior testimony to avoid 30(b)(6) depositions	Court: being bound by prior testimony is not an adequate substitute absent showing of exact overlap; defendants’ offer insufficient

Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. TheGlobe.com, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 524 (D. Kan. 2006) (explaining Rule 30(b)(6) notice/production obligations)
United States v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356 (M.D.N.C. 1996) (discussing corporation appearing through designee and binding effect of testimony)
Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 203 F.R.D. 159 (D. Del. 2001) (discussing when prior individual depositions may make 30(b)(6) cumulative)