Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14350, 186 F.R.D. 148 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), a designating organization has a duty to make a good faith effort to produce a knowledgeable deponent prepared on matters reasonably available to the organization. A minor deficiency in the deponent's knowledge on a limited topic does not automatically warrant a new deposition if the deponent was otherwise well-prepared and the information can be obtained through less burdensome means.
Facts:
- The underlying lawsuit, known as 'Filegate,' involves allegations that the White House improperly received and misused hundreds of FBI files of former government employees from prior administrations.
- Plaintiffs theorized that evidence of this misuse could be found on White House audio or visual recording systems by tracking traffic to and from certain offices.
- To investigate this, plaintiffs sought to depose a representative from the Executive Office of the President (EOP) about any such recording systems.
- The EOP designated John Dankowski, the Director of White House Operations, as its witness on this topic.
- In preparation, Dankowski reviewed spending and service records for the White House Office dating back to 1992 and consulted with several other individuals.
- During his deposition, Dankowski testified that he was unaware of any non-Secret Service surveillance systems.
- Dankowski described the current voice mail system, installed in 1994, but stated he could not recall whether a voice mail system existed in the White House Office between 1992 and 1994.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued the Executive Office of the President (EOP) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- During discovery, Plaintiffs served a deposition notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) for testimony on White House surveillance systems.
- The EOP filed a motion to quash the deposition notice.
- The District Court denied the EOP's motion but limited the scope of the testimony to non-Secret Service systems and a specific time period.
- The EOP designated John Dankowski, who was then deposed by Plaintiffs.
- Following the deposition, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Re-Designation of Witness and for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs with the District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an organization fail to meet its discovery obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) by designating a witness who is knowledgeable about the vast majority of noticed topics but is unable to testify about one limited subject area from a specific time period?
Opinions:
Majority - Lamberth, District Judge.
No, the organization does not fail its obligations under these circumstances. An organization's duty under Rule 30(b)(6) is to designate and prepare a witness in good faith on matters known or reasonably available to it, but perfection is not required. The court found that Dankowski was the appropriate deponent due to his role as Director of White House Operations and that he was adequately prepared, having reviewed records and consulted with colleagues. The court rejected plaintiffs' speculative argument about a 'secret department' for surveillance, stating that the EOP is not required to prove the non-existence of something to an absolute certainty. Although Dankowski could not testify about the pre-1994 voice mail system, this single, limited deficiency in his testimony did not justify the burden of a new oral deposition. The court concluded that a less burdensome remedy, such as written interrogatories, was more appropriate to address the minor gap in information.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the practical application of Rule 30(b)(6), emphasizing that the standard for compliance is good faith and reasonable preparation, not omniscience. It establishes that a minor gap in a deponent's knowledge will not automatically result in an order compelling a new deposition. The ruling demonstrates that courts will balance the discovering party's need for information against the responding party's burden, often preferring less drastic remedies like written discovery to resolve limited informational deficiencies. This approach helps prevent the use of Rule 30(b)(6) motions as a punitive measure for anything less than a perfect deposition.
