Gartrell v. Gaylor

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that company designating a 30(b)(6) witness has the obligation to prepare that witness to testify on the subject for which the company certifies that the person is competent
• noting that “the designating party has a duty to prepare the witness to testify on matters not only known by the deponent, but those that should be reasonably known by the designating party,” because “the purpose of a Rule 30(b)(6
• permitting interrogatories instead of new oral deposition of 30(b)(6) deponent when original deponent was knowledgeable about some, but not all, topics
• rejecting the argument that plaintiffs’ topic of inquiry—“the computer systems commonly known as or referred to as ‘Big Brother and/or ‘WHODB’”—was not sufficiently particular given facts of case
• rejecting the argument that plaintiffs’ topic of inquiry—“the computer systems commonly known as or referred to as ‘Big Brother and/or ‘WHODB’”—was not sufficiently particular given facts of case
• describing organization’s obligation to prepare for Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in similar terms

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).