Among my colleagues of the medical malpractice defense bar, we increasingly see plaintiffs’ lawyers “trying” their case via the 30(b)(6) deposition(s) of the corporate defendant(s), in other words, using these depositions to ask substantive questions that go to the ultimate issues, perhaps in a nonconfrontational, indirect way that can even seem friendly. As such, these depositions are not to be taken lightly. If not properly handled (and prepared for), these depositions can turn into an opportunity for the plaintiff to make the supposed “big bad brick and mortar” defendant look disjointed, evasive or ill-prepared. Obviously, this can be problematic and certainly even more so if the deposition(s) is videotaped. A poorly-worded sound bite from a well-meaning representative can haunt the remainder of litigation and, at the extreme, testimony from these depositions can throw a defensible case off course. In the worst case, a corporate representative can even be lulled through clever hypotheticals into making an “admission” that a policy was breached—or worse, that a deviation of the standard of care occurred. The key to effectively combating and handling these depositions is proper assessment of the designated topics and complete, thorough witness preparation.
Backdrop: The Wording and Purpose of the Statutes
