As the following representative excerpts of Rehkow's deposition demonstrate, he as NCS's 30(b)(6) witness, did not provide much assistance in interpreting the discovery, either:
Q. All right. So—but I'm asking about the cash to school.
A. Well, the cash should tie into our progress report.
A. Unfortunately the progress report and the Bates number's in alphabetical order and it's not in numerical order, so I couldn't tie these numbers into the progress report.
A. And there's—there's no names on this.
(Rehkow depo p. 139, ll. 22—p. 140, ll. 8).
Q. And by your own definition that would have been “Cash to School,” not “Arrangement Made to School”?
A. Well, that's what this report says.
Q. Okay. But we don't have anything but this report?
A. Unfortunately I was unable to, during the break, match these numbers to the progress report.
A. The progress report is available online. You can print it out.
(Rehkow depo p. 142, ll. 14—p. 143, ll. 25).
Q. Next Exhibit 20, I'd ask you to look at it and tell me when you're ready for questions.
Q. And what is this document?
A. This is a spreadsheet prepared by Lynn Goldberg showing various claims that Benedict was either paid in full or paid to NCS, or if no documents were present, when—then the client went online to update balance and settle claim. And then it's got the amounts listed. These are loan numbers in the middle here from Benedict.
*5 Q. All right. So NCS was representing that this was an accurate compilation of whatever information was on it?
A. Well, it certainly—it was prepared by Lynn Goldberg, and, again, I was not asked to familiarize myself with this particular document.
Q. What did you familiarize yourself with, sir?
A. Let me find the notice. Okay. Development of the agreement, plaintiff. The terms of the agreement, the back of the order form.
A. Basis for damages alleged by NCS in this matter.
Q. All right, sir. Let's stop right there. The document that I've just handed out, Exhibit 20, are you contending under oath that this document has nothing to do with the basis for damages alleged by NCS in this matter? Yes or no, and then you can explain.
A. I don't believe this has do with—I mean, I can't tell from this document.
Q. Sir, you were noticed to—and represented as a—the individual—
Q.—who represents NCS to discuss the basis for damages alleged by NCS in this matter. You have said—you got—you don't know a fundamental issue—fundamental piece of information about this document, and then you said, it's because you did not prepare because it is not within the scope.
Q. I am asking you for a yes or no, and then you may explain. Does this document have anything to do with the basis for damages alleged by NCS in this matter? Yes or no.
Q. All right. Is that a no?
Q. Is it the NCS position? Yes or no.
Counsel for Plaintiff: [Counsel], I'm going to have to do something here.
Counsel for Defendant: He's saying he doesn't know.
Counsel for Plaintiff: He doesn't know. So he is not the correct individual to discuss this document under the 30(b)(6)?
Counsel for Defendant: This document wasn't designated nor is any of the documents in production designated. There are thousands of documents that relate to National Credit Systems' basis for the damages in this case.
Counsel for Plaintiff: Are you saying that he doesn't—this is not part of—this is not related to the basis of damages? That's what I'm—that's what I'm hearing. That's what is on the record.
Q. Let's go back to Exhibit 19, this document, and let's go over this one again.
Q. Again, I ask you, sir, is this document a basis for the damages alleged by NCS in this matter? Yes or no and you may explain.
Q. Sir, were you noticed that you were to be—represent the company in discussing the basis for the damages alleged by NCS in this matter?
Q. Did you prepare to discuss the basis for damages alleged by NCS in this matter?
Q. Why do you not know whether this document is one of the bases for the damages alleged by NCS in this matter?
A. Well, I can't tell from this document whether this is phase one collections or phase two collections.
*6 Q. All right, sir. And how do you expect Benedict to be able to know whether this is related to phase one, phase two or anything to do with damages?
A. Well, there's a report that was produced—
Q. Sir, I'm talking being about this document.
Counsel for Defendant: He's trying to answer the question. He's—
Q. Excuse me. Go ahead and answer.
A. I was told that there was upwards of 20 thousand—20 million dollars in ACM, second part collection service.
A. There's a report somewhere.
(Rehkow depo p. 174, ll. 25—p. 179, ll. 11).
Q. What would—what is your view of the date that this addendum was signed?
Q. Do you agree that July 12th, 2007, was the date that these signatures were affixed?
A. Well, I really can't answer that. I didn't sign it, but they put that date there.
Q. Okay. Do you have any reason to believe it wasn't signed on July 12th, 2007?
Q. And would you agree that normally when an individual affixes a date to his signature, that is the date they sign it?
A. I don't—I'm not going to agree with that. I don't know that to be a fact, no.
(Rehkow depo p. 72, ll. 25—p. 73, ll. 14).