Ray v. Koester

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “in responding to a Rule 30(b)(6) notice or subpoena, a corporation may not take the position that its documents state the company’s position”
• stating “the two forms of discovery are not equivalent” and “depositions provide a more complete means to obtain information and are, therefore, favored.”
• “Producing documents and responding to written discovery is not a substitute for providing a thoroughly educated Rule 30(b)(6) deponent.”
• “Producing documents and responding to written discovery is not a substitute for providing a thoroughly educated Rule 30(b)(6) deponent.”
• “Producing documents and responding to written discovery is not a substitute for providing a thoroughly educated Rule 30(b)(6) deponent.”
• noting Rule 37(d) sanctions are available for a corporation who fails to present an adequately prepared witness out of reverence to the purpose of Rule 30(b)(6)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).