Deposition of Corporate Witness Denied in Light of Contention Interrogatories

Oct 14, 2021

Reading Time : 2 min

Earlier in the litigation, the defendant filed a motion for an informal hearing before the magistrate judge regarding the appropriateness of the plaintiff’s 30(b)(6) deposition topics. Those topics included the defendant’s invalidity contentions, noninfringement contentions, damages limitations contentions and affirmative defenses. The magistrate judge issued a protective order preventing the plaintiff from asking the 30(b)(6) witness about those topics. The magistrate judge explained that in the case at hand, interrogatories were a better discovery vehicle for the topics and that a 30(b)(6) deposition on those topics would be overly burdensome. The plaintiff raised several objections to the protective order.

The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s order for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). First, the court found that the magistrate judge had not based the ruling on the premise that 30(b)(6) depositions are per se inappropriate vehicles for discovery on contentions and affirmative defenses. Instead, the order had explained that appropriateness is considered on a case-by-case basis, and this was what was done here.

Next, the court overruled the plaintiff’s objection that the magistrate judge had required the plaintiff to provide a compelling reason for the deposition. The court explained that, properly construed, the order stated that the deposition on those topics would be burdensome and not cost-effective, and that because the plaintiff had not provided a reason why that was not the case, the plaintiff had not provided a compelling reason for allowing the deposition on the topics.

Finally, the court overruled the objection that the magistrate judge had erred by requiring interrogatories as the only way to ask questions on the topics. The court explained that the plaintiff had failed to show clear error with its argument that the witnesses were in the best position to answer the questions. The court reasoned that even if the plaintiff would be in a better position with a deposition than an interrogatory, that did not show clear error by the magistrate judge, especially in light of the dearth of support showing that the deposition topics would not be overly burdensome and costly.

Practice Tip: Parties wishing to take 30(b)(6) deposition testimony should be aware of the local practices and rulings on whether and under what circumstances the 30(b)(6) topics can include contentions and defenses. Parties should also bear in mind that discovery should be proportional to the needs of the case, and that less burdensome and less costly methods of obtaining the same discovery may be favored by courts.

Lifted Limited, LLC v. Novelty Inc., Civil Action No. 16-cv-03135-PAB-GPG (D. Colo. Sept. 30, 2021)

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.