Judelson v. Ladd

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a court should consider the specific facts of the case to find whether or not the discovery in question goes too far
• allowing defendant to question 30(b)(6) witness about plaintiff’s compliance with policies that plaintiff had previously produced
• quashing Rule 30(b)(6) topic where noticing party had the underlying facts and “[t[he person best equipped to answer questions” was an expert witness
• “[Rule] 30(b)(6) depositions can be used to test theories, challenge facts and fill in information gaps... .”
• “A party may also have an interest in getting the corporation’s testimony on an issue, rather than the testimony of an individual.”
• “Where the notice seeks information which could more easily be obtained from another source, the court may refuse to allow that topic to be the subject of a 30(b)(6) deposition.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).