Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Your company is engaged in civil discovery and is served with a Rule 30(b)(1) notice identifying a specific corporate officer or director to be produced for deposition. The designee is busy, located overseas, knows little about the issues in the lawsuit, does not want to sit for a deposition, or some combination of the above. What are your options? Most in-house counsel know to argue that a high-level executive, such as the CEO, is an “apex” witness who should not be deposed until the noticing party has exhausted alternative discovery means. Another argument counsel may not know, however, involves using the text and intent of Rule 30(b)(1) to curtail these depositions.
Although most courts have interpreted Rule 30(b)(1) to allow such depositions, one particular well-reasoned opinion examining the rule provides a blueprint for counsel to resist convention and effect a better outcome for their companies. This uphill battle is often worth fighting, as it empowers institutional parties to preclude or at least place limits on an opposing party's ability to demand depositions of named officers, directors, and managing agents.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.