United States v. Bhagavan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that documents and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions were “not equivalent” and explaining that a “Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is a sworn corporate admission that is binding on the corporation”
• finding that employees’ knowledge is “imputed to the [organization] itself” (citation omitted)
• noting the differences between discovery obtained by document submissions and discovery obtained by a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
• faulting party for failing “to meet its obligations to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness properly educated as to the noticed deposition topics”
• allowing 30(b)(6) facts and admissions in corporation’s antitrust submission to European Commission, stating: “Bioproducts argument that the Rule 30(b)(6) discovery is unnecessary and duplicative is without merit.”
• corporation is obligated to produce one or more Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses who are thoroughly educated about the noticed deposition topics and facts known to the corporation or its counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).