Motion to Compel Deposition of Corporate Representative in Texas

What Is a Motion to Compel Deposition of Corporate Representative?

Background

Rule 199.2(b)(1) is patterned after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). (In re FedEx Ground Package Sys. (2020) NO. 14-19-00861-CV, at *13 citing Hosp. Corp. of Am. v. Farrar (1987) 733 S.W.2d 393, 394-95, recognizing Federal Rule 30(b)(6) as the rule after which Texas Rule 199.2(b)(1) was modeled).

Texas Rule 199.2(b)(1) provides the following in relevant part with respect to taking the deposition of an organization:

“If an organization is named as the witness, the notice must describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In response, the organization named in the notice must--a reasonable time before the deposition--designate one or more individuals to testify on its behalf and set forth, for each individual designated, the matters on which the individual will testify. Each individual designated must testify as to matters that are known or reasonably available to the organization. This subdivision does not preclude taking a deposition by any other procedure authorized by these rules.”

(In re FedEx Ground Package Sys. (2020) NO. 14-19-00861-CV, at *14. citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.2(b)(1).)

The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party can take the deposition of an organization through the organization’s corporate representative. Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.2.

How to Structure the Motion

When moving the court to compel a deposition under Rule 199.2(b)(1), the motion should include the following:

Title: (Ex: Defendant's or Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Opposing Party's Corporate Representative;
Background Facts and Requests For Deposition, including statement of the case, information regarding noticed depositions, statement regarding non-compliance with notice;
Moving Party's Requirements (of deponent's testimony) at trial;
Moving Party's Statement as to why they are “Entitled To A Corporate Representative Deposition Concerning the Designated or Noticed Issues;
Supporting caselaw and statutory sources;
Prayer for Relief;
Supporting exhibits, including deposition notices.

(In re Safeco Ins. Co. Of America (2017) WL 2443082, at 1 (Tex. App. -Corpus Christi 2017, orig. proceeding, review denied); In re Luna (2016) WL 6576879, at 6-7 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2016, orig. proceeding)(mem. op.); In re Garcia 2007 WL 1481897, at 2-3 (Tex. App. -San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding)(per curiam mem. op.); In re Garcia, 2007 WL 1481897 at 2.3; In re Luna, 2016 WL 6576879, at 6-7 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2016, orig. proceeding.)

Response

A petition for writ of mandamus may be filed by a party seeking to vacate the trial court's order granting a motion to compel the deposition of its corporate representative. (In re Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. (2017) NUMBER 13-17-00264-CV, at *1.)

The Court’s Decision

“An individual witness designated to present testimony on behalf of a corporation is obligated to "testify as to matters that are known or reasonably available to the organization.” (In re Family Dollar Stores of Tex., LLC No. 04-14-00656-CV (2015) at *4 citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.2 (b)(1) holding that “The trial court abused its discretion in ordering an additional corporate representative deposition to occur in the county of suit on the same topics on which a witness has already been presented.; see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Street (1988) 754 S.W.2d 153, 155, stating “mandamus will issue when a trial court orders a deposition to occur in a location contrary to the rules of procedure....”)

“The corporation is entitled to present one or more witnesses to meet this obligation with respect to the topics specified in the corporate representative deposition notice.” (In re Family Dollar Stores of Tex., LLC No. 04-14-00656-CV (2015) at *4) “There is no obligation to present the ‘most knowledgeable’ person, or an individual with personal knowledge of the specified topics, but only a person reasonably prepared to address the subject matters designated in the notice.”(Id.)

“We may look to federal authority for guidance when the state law mirrors the federal law. In interpreting Federal Rule 30(b)(6), federal courts hold that Rule 30(b)(6) does not allow a party to subpoena a corporate representative to compel testimony at trial.” (In re FedEx Ground Package Sys. (2020) NO. 14-19-00861-CV, at *13 citing Hosp. Corp. of Am. v. Farrar (1987) 733 S.W.2d 393, 394-95.)