Brazos River Authority v. GE Ionics, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district erred when it allowed a corporate representative to testify to information he learned only through conversations with other people at the company
• recognizing that when a designated representative is unable or unwilling to testify on a certain subject, a corporation may comply with its duty by “designat[ing] another witness with personal or corporate knowledge of the questions asked”
• explaining that a Rule 30(b)(6) witness “does not give his personal opinions, but presents the corporation’s ‘position’ on the topic”
• explaining that a Rule 30(b)(6) witness “does not give his personal opinions, but presents the corporation’s ‘position’ on the topic”
• stating that business “must prepare the designee to the extent matters are reasonably available, whether from documents, past employees, or other sources”
• explaining that a Rule 30(b)(6) representative “does not testify as to his personal knowledge or perceptions... he testifies vicariously for the corporation, as to its knowledge and perceptions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).