Class Objector and Counsel Earn Contempt Sanction for Fielding Unprepared 30(b)(6) Deponent

Following a class objector’s failure to appear at a duly noticed deposition, the magistrate judge recommended the objector and its counsel be held in contempt when the objector’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent was unready at a second, court-ordered deposition. “Despite this order, [the objector entity’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent] ‘was manifestly unprepared to provide meaningful testimony’ at the deposition . . . . [The deponent] was unable to answer basic questions about [objector]-related objections filed in class action cases in the past five years, including identifying the reason for the objection, the outcome of the objection, and whether [objector’s counsel] had received compensation as a result of the objections. At the May 8, 2018 hearing, [counsel] did not attempt to argue that he and [the objector] ‘performed all reasonable steps within their power to insure compliance’ with the April 19, 2018 order, and did not claim that he and [the objector] were unable to comply with the order in any way. Accordingly, the court recommends that [the objector and its counsel] be held in civil contempt.”

In re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, 4-13-md-02420 (CAND 2018-05-14, Order) (Donna M. Ryu)

2018-05-16T12:20:03+00:00May 16th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|