Camenisch

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SHELA CAMENISCH, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05905-RS (AGT)

Plaintiffs,

DISCOVERY ORDER

v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 70 UMPQUA BANK, Defendant.

A 30(b)(6) deposition generally counts as a single deposition, even if the deposed organiza- tion designates multiple witnesses to testify. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A) advisory committee’s notes (1993 amendment). But if the questioner asks the organization’s witnesses to answer ques- tions outside the scope of the noticed 30(b)(6) topics, based on personal knowledge, then there are effectively two depositions in one, one of the organization and one of the individual. Fairness con- siderations weigh in favor of counting such hybrid question-and-answer sessions as two depositions. For if it were otherwise, the questioner could get around court-imposed numerical limits on deposi- tions by using 30(b)(6) depositions as cover for deposing more people.1 These considerations are in play here. The plaintiffs noticed a 30(b)(6) deposition of …