In The United States of America v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. No. 19-2103-MN (D. Del.), plaintiff moved to compel defendant to produce a 30(b)(6) witness on various topics, including on "[a]ll bases" for certain statements by defendant's CEO, including statements about a decision not to challenge the validity of certain patents.
As to two of those topics, the defendant argued in its responsive letter that the CEO's statements were "based entirely on communications and memoranda prepared by Gilead’s in-house counsel and outside counsel," which are privileged. The Court generally agreed:
[T]he Court definitely acknowledges Defendants' point[, ]i.e., that when it comes to the "bases" for [the CEO's] statements about this subject matter, many (if not most, or all) of the Government's questions are likely to draw privilege or work product-related objections and instructions not to answer. (D.I. 281 at 2)
Nonetheless, the Court ordered that the defendant produce a witness on the topics:
[T]he request is GRANTED. For the reasons set out by the Government, it appears to the Court that the underlying subject matter referenced in these portions of [the CEO's] testimony is relevant to the case. . . . [I]n the Court's view, just because viable objections might limit the usable answers the Government receives from a deposition, that does not mean that the Government has failed to establish its entitlement to take the deposition in the first place (which it has here)
I could see this opinion being useful in response to the objections that a party has "no non-privileged information" on a 30(b)(6) topic. Of course, that only helps if you think it will be worthwhile to potentially go through the exercise of getting stonewalled through "most, or all" of a deposition.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
