Identifying 30(b)(6) Designees via Interrogatories

I see form interrogatories asking my client to identify prospective 30(b)(6) designees an annoyingly regular basis. Is this proper? No. This question was litigated in Fadem v. Am. States Preferred Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6312 (D. Nev. Jan. 16, 2014), discussed earlier this week in the context of certain requests for production. When I receive this form interrogatory, I respond just as the defendant did here.

Interrogatory 8:
Identify the name and the residence address of the following individuals:
(a) the person most knowledgeable from American States Preferred Insurance Company regarding the policy of insurance which provided coverage to Scott Fadem including all endorsements, forms, changes or amendments.
(b) the person most knowledgeable from American States Preferred Insurance Company regarding all documents utilized by American States Preferred Insurance Company to calculate the amount of insurance premiums which were charged for the policy of insurance which provided coverage to Scott Fadem.
(c) the person most knowledgeable from American States Preferred Insurance Company regarding all procedures that have been adopted or utilized by American States Preferred Insurance Company for the handling of underinsured motorist claims.
(d) the person most knowledgeable from American States Preferred Insurance Company regarding all claims adjustment guidelines and procedures that American States Preferred Insurance Company has implemented, adopted, or utilized for the prompt investigation and handling of underinsured motorist claims.
(e) the person most knowledgeable from American States Preferred Insurance Company regarding all documentation found within American States Preferred Insurance Company’s claims files regarding claims that have been made by Scott Fadem.
(f) the person most knowledgeable from American States Preferred Insurance Company regarding all documentation generated by American States Preferred Insurance Company as a result of Scott Fadem’s underinsured motorist claim.
(g) the person most knowledgeable from American States Preferred Insurance Company regarding all actions, including communications and correspondence by American States Preferred Insurance Company and its employees, to resolve Scott Fadem’s underinsured motorist claim.
(h) the person most knowledgeable from American States Preferred Insurance Company regarding all affirmative defenses asserted by American States Preferred Insurance Company including every denial of the allegations to the Plaintiff’s Complaint found in the Defendant’s Answer.

Response to Interrogatory 8:
ASPIC objects to this Interrogatory as compound, premature, and improper under the Court’s Rules. Specifically, Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the proper mechanism for an organization to designate a person most knowledgeable, after a properly issues notice identifying with reasonable particularity the topics of the deposition. ASPIC will identify such witnesses when it receives a deposition notice pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(c)[sic].

The court agreed with the objection. It is nice to occasionally read an order affirming an objection that I also use.