Zeleny v. Brown, 3:17-cv-07357

Background:

Plaintiff Michael Zeleny wants to openly carry unloaded firearms at public protests; California generally bans open carry but exempts an “authorized participant” in a motion picture, television or entertainment event (Cal. Penal Code §§ 26350, 26375, 26405(r)).
Statute lacks a definition of “authorized participant” and contains no implementing regulations; the City of Menlo Park views an “authorized participant” as someone holding a city film/event permit; Zeleny disputes that interpretation.
Zeleny sued and named the California Attorney General (AG) as a defendant; he seeks (A) to invalidate the open-carry laws if his construction fails and (B) a declaration adopting his interpretation of the “authorized participant” exception.
Zeleny propounded interrogatories and served a Rule 30(b)(6) notice on the AG about 20 topics, including topic 13 (“The interpretation of the Open Carry Statutes”); the AG’s corporate witness refused to answer legal-interpretation questions at deposition.
Zeleny moved to compel a 30(b)(6) witness to answer statutory-interpretation questions or, alternatively, to depose AG Xavier Becerra; the AG opposed, arguing the notice was overbroad, sought pure legal contentions, and that an apex deposition of the AG was unwarranted.
The magistrate judge denied the motion: topic 13 was insufficiently particular and overbroad, much of the requested interpretation was irrelevant, Rule 30(b)(6) is not the proper vehicle for extracting legal contentions, and Becerra’s deposition was barred under the apex doctrine since he lacked unique first‑hand knowledge and other discovery avenues existed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the AG must produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to interpret the open-carry statutes	Zeleny says AG must designate a witness to state the official meaning, including the “authorized participant” exception	AG says the notice seeks legal conclusions and is improper for 30(b)(6); topic is too broad	Denied — 30(b)(6) deposition to interpret statutes is improper here
Whether topic 13 met Rule 30(b)(6)’s reasonable particularity requirement	Topic sufficiently describes the subject	Topic is sweeping and fails to describe matters with reasonable particularity	Topic 13 is too broad and fails the particularity requirement
Whether Rule 30(b)(6) may be used to obtain an opponent’s legal contentions	Zeleny seeks binding legal interpretation via deposition	AG: legal conclusions are improper 30(b)(6) subjects; use interrogatories/RFAs for contentions	Court holds 30(b)(6) cannot be used to extract legal contentions; contention discovery belongs in rogs/RFAs
Whether AG Xavier Becerra should be deposed (apex doctrine)	Zeleny alternatively seeks Becerra’s deposition	AG: apex objection — Becerra lacks unique personal knowledge; other discovery available	Denied — no unique first‑hand knowledge and less intrusive sources exist

Key Cases Cited

Snapp v. United Transp. Union, 889 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2018) (a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent’s legal conclusions do not bind the entity)
Kyle Eng’g Co. v. Kleppe, 600 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1979) (heads of government agencies are not normally subject to deposition)
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Ltd., 282 F.R.D. 259 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (apex deposition factors: unique knowledge and exhaustion of less intrusive means)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (naming state officers in suits challenging state statutes is proper procedural vehicle)