Bourgeois

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PENNY BOURGEOIS, Case No. 23-cv-06375-HSG (AGT)

Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER

v. Re: Dkt. No.

PENTEC HEALTH, INC.,

Defendant.

This order resolves the parties’ discovery dispute at dkt. 27, in connection with Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Plaintiff is seeking a court order, compelling Pentec to “name its corporate representatives in advance of the deposition.” Dkt. 27 at 3. Defendant offers to disclose the names “if Plaintiff will agree to take the depositions of those individuals in both a corporate and individual capacity in one sitting.” Id. Under Rule 30(b)(6), “[t]he named organization must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Pentec does have a duty to “educate its witnesses so they are prepared to fully answer the questions posed at the deposition.” Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 486 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Bowoto v. ChevronTexaco…