Depo Procedural Question

[Lindsay Pinkham]

I reported the depo today of what I was told was Vol. 2 of the PMQ of X Corporation. I saw on the transcript of Vol. 1 the deponent's name was Mr. Jones.  But it turned out a different employee, Mr. Smith, showed up for the second volume. I was also told that Smith would be testifying not only as a PMQ, but as an individual.  And he definitely has not had his depo taken before as an individual.  So I'm leaning toward just leaving off any volume designations and calling it depo of John Smith as a PMQ of X Corporation and as an individual.  What do you all think?

[Marge Teilhaber (TILE hobber)]

I wouldn't even put PMQ.   Just John Doe is the witness starting on page 1 like any dep.  And no mention of volume, of course.

[Kelli Combs (admin)]

I would have asked counsel what he prefers.  This could go a few different ways.  I usually put

                             DEPOSITION OF JOHN SMITH (PMK)

In the situation as you describe above, I would not put Vol. II since it is a different witness, as Marge said.

[Valerie Shand]

In Massachusetts, under our rules of civil procedure, there are Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of corporations.

So I think this sounds like Volume II of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of PMQ Corporation, By and Through its Representative JOHN SMITH, Combined with Volume I of the Rule 30 deposition of JOHN SMITH, Individually.

If you have the notice, it may say what rules the deposition is being taken under.

I would also have asked the attorney for clarification, as has already been said.

[Janiece Young]

If these people are testifying for a company, say as representatives of Acme, Inc., it may be that it should be a volume 2.  I would check with the taking attorney and do what he/she says.

[Barbara A. Como]

It is very unusual for a different witness to show up for what they said was the second volume. In fact, I've never heard of such a thing in my 35 years.  I would not call it volume 2.  

[Jules]

I think I would modify my normal corporate designee heading as follows:

DEPOSITION OF JOHN DOE

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CORPORATE DESIGNEE (Volume II)

OF BIG COMPANY USA

Then in the paragraph in which I recite all the facts of the deposition as to time, location, parties present, blah, blah, blah, I insert under what rule the deposition is going to be taken.  Maybe it's a regional thing, but it's not that uncommon to have different individuals from a company serve as the corporate designee on different aspects of the case.  In other words, you may have one person serve as the corporate designee regarding accounting and another on employment practices, so even though the witnesses may change, it's still the deposition of the company.  I even had one case where two people were deposed simultaneously with whichever one answering that was more familiar with the subject being asked about.

Given that he's also serving in his individual capacity, I think that while I might note it's Volume II of the corporate deposition, I would treat it as a new transcript and start the numbering at page 1.  What a mess.  I'm sure if you ask 20 different reporters, you'll get 20 different answers.  The important part is to make sure that all of the necessary information is contained in your title and appearance pages.

[Lindsay Pinkham]

What threw me was how to show it was the second session of company's PMQ (albeit a different person), and the first session of the person as an individual.  And it was a person most qualified depo in an LA County Sup Ct case, not the deposition of a corporation via Federal Rule 30(b)(6). I too have seen multiple depos of PMQs from the same company, but not denominated with different volume numbers.  So I ended up titling it "DEPOSITION OF JOHN SMITH, AS PERSON MOST QUALIFIED FROM XX CONSTRUCTION AND AS AN INDIVIDUAL" and making no mention of volume numbers.  I think that covers it.