*1 The above resisted motion [283] is before the Court following hearing. Plaintiff has served trial subpoenas directed to Toy Network and Manley Toy Direct for a “30(b)(6) Witness who can testify to the relationship between [movants] and the various defendants in this case, and knowledge regarding who employed Plaintiff.” Toy Network and Manley Toy Direct move to quash the subpoenas because service was made on counsel only, and requesting designation of a Rule 30(b)(6) trial witness is beyond the scope of the rule. Plaintiff responds she has since served copies of the subpoenas on movants' registered agents which, she contends, corrects the service problem under Rule 45.

The Court believes the fundamental problem with the subpoenas is the attempt to use the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition discovery device in a trial subpoena. Rule 30(b)(6) pertains only to depositions in the course of discovery. Rule 30 is in Title V of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to “Disclosures and Discovery.” Subdivision (b)(6) of the rule permits a party, by notice or subpoena, to name an organization as a deponent. The deponent so named must then designate persons to testify on its behalf concerning the matters for examination described in the notice or subpoena. An adverse party may then use the deposition for any purpose at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3). There is no counterpart to the Rule 30(b)(6) procedure in Rule 45 with respect to subpoenas for trial testimony.

The Court believes the Rule 30(b)(6) discovery mechanism is best left in the discovery process. Textually, that is what the rules clearly contemplate. As a practical matter, Rule 30(b)(6) depositions are a fertile source of disputes. Requiring organizations to designate Rule 30 (b)(6) trial witnesses would in many cases greatly complicate the final pretrial process by moving those disputes to just before trial. Rule 30(b)(6) testimony should be “in the can” ready to use long before trial. There is not much relevant case authority, but the Court agrees with those cases which have held that “Rule 30(b)(6) applies to deposition testimony, not trial testimony.” In re Otero County Hospital Assoc., Inc., 2014 WL 184984, at *10 (Bkrptcy D.N.M. Jan. 15, 2014)(emphasis original); see Smith v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 302 F.R.D. 688, 694 (S.D. Fla. 2014); Hill v. Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp., 1989 WL 87621, at *1 (E.D. La. July 28, 1989). Finally, while understanding the level of frustration which has prompted the subpoenas, Plaintiff by them really is attempting post-deadline discovery on core relationship and employment issues which have been in the case for a long time.

Motion to quash [283] granted. The subpoenas in issue are quashed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 16th day of April, 2015.