*1 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 135). This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 135) is GRANTED.

The factual background of this matter is detailed in the Courts Order Denying Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 141. Plaintiff seeks to compel (1) a further deposition of Defendant Yellowhawk Resort WW, LLC's designated witness per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) and (2) documents related to Yellowhawk's wine distribution. ECF No. 135 at 3.

On September 30, 2023, Plaintiff served a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on Yellowhawk identifying twenty-five topics to be covered. Id. at 4. On October 27, 2023, without seeking a protective order regarding the topics outlined, Yellowhawk produced Dan Thiessen, its managing member, as the entity's representative. Id. Multiple times during the deposition, Thiessen asserted that his answer would be based on “personal knowledge,” and as such had not consulted with any other Yellowhawk employee or document in preparation to answer questions. ECF No. 136-2 at 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Yellowhawk maintains that Thiessen was properly prepared and answered most questions asked in the deposition. ECF No. 142 at 3.

Separately, Plaintiff also sent Yellowhawk its fourth set of requests for productions (“RFPs”), requesting documents that reflect the winery's distribution list for wines and services, including documentation related to wine distributor “Vehrs.” ECF No. 135 at 5. Defendant Yellowhawk objected, albeit outside of the relevant timeframe, both because it asserted that some of the wording of the RFPs was too broad, and because the “Vehrs” document is irrelevant to the matter at hand as the Yellowhawk brand wine distributed does not use the contested “Revelers Club” mark. ECF No. 142 at 9.

I. Motion to Compel Standard

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party has a duty to cooperate and comply with the discovery process. Under Rule 37, a party may move the Court for an order compelling discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The motion must include certification that the moving party “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer” with opposing counsel in an effort to obtain discovery without court action. Id. The Court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny discovery. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

II. Rule 30(b)(6) Witness

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, a party may question an entity's designee provided that it is served with a notice that describes “with reasonable particularity the matters for examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). “The persons designated must testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization.” Id. Stated another way, Rule 30(b)(6) requires that a designee testify on the noticed topics, “regardless of whether the information was in the specific witness's personal knowledge, provided that the information is reasonably available to the corporation or organization.” Updike v. Clackamas Cnty., No. 3:15-CV-00723-SI, 2016 WL 111424, at *2 (D. Or. Jan. 11, 2016); see also Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., 251 F.R.D. 534, 539 (D. Nev. 2008) (internal citations omitted) (“Rule 30(b)(6) is not designed to be a memory contest ... (h)owever, a corporation has ‘a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to prepare them to fully and un[-]evasively answer questions about the designated subject matter.’ ”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(i) allows a party to “move for an order compelling an answer, production, or inspection” if “a deponent fails to answer a question asked under Rules 30 or 31.”

*2 Yellowhawk faults Plaintiff for seeking additional information from Thiessen, because it argues that the deposition answers as given were mostly proper based on personal knowledge given his role at the company.[1] ECF No. 142 at 5. While true that Thiessen is likely the most appropriate representative of Yellowhawk given his firsthand involvement in the inception of the company and continued management, that is not the standard of Rule 30(b)(6). Plaintiff was not seeking a personal deposition of Thiessen, and while the company is small, the designee has a duty to reasonably prepare for questions that may arise and give answers from the perspective of the entity, which may extend outside his or her personal knowledge.[2] All. for Glob. Just. v. D.C., 437 F. Supp. 2d 32, 37 (D.D.C. 2006). While at one point, Thiessen stated he reviewed documents and talked with employees, he is unable to answer if and when Yellowhawk began preserving documents for litigation, admitted he spoke to no one and reviewed no documents relating to the entity's knowledge of Revelry or Revelry wines, and stated that he did not speak to any individual in preparation to answer relevant questions such as; the communication between the entity and Revelry, entity confusion surrounding the use of “Revelers Club,” the ownership and management structure of Yellowhawk, Yellowhawk's purchase of Basel Cellars, specifics on Yellowhawk's creation of wine-related events, and Yellowhawk's plans of expansion. ECF No. 136-2 at 4–13. He also stated he did not know which documents he had reviewed in relation to Yellowhawk's wine related events. Id. at 17. There is no question that Thiessen should be able to rely on his personal knowledge as a basis for his answers, but the questions posed by Plaintiff are seeking the entity's knowledge, which may expand beyond his own knowledge set, or may need to be refreshed. Particular questions about the company's finances, which may be handled by a specific employee, or broad questions regarding the company's global knowledge, require some preparation when the entity is composed of more than just one person. In spite of Defendant Yellowhawk's contention that many Rule 30(b)(6) designees do not review documents or interview employees, the Court is not persuaded that this particular deposition was prepared for adequately.[3] Burgess v. Daimler Truck N. Am., LLC, No. 1:23-CV-03054-MKD, 2024 WL 407476, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 2, 2024) (“[T]he corporation is obliged to educate and prepare the witness only on matters that are ‘reasonably available’ to it.”).

Parties have attested that a meet and confer was accomplished prior to the deposition and that they met at least twice after to discuss the specific issue of Thiessen's preparation. ECF Nos. 135 at 4, 5 and 146 at 2. Notwithstanding Defendant's objections both on the record, and undoubtedly the objections raised during parties meet and confer before and after the deposition, the Court finds the topics raised by Plaintiff (including Topic 23 which Defendant has conceded) are relevant to the discovery effort and warrant a response. Plaintiff is instructed to serve a renewed Rule 30(b)(6) notice on Defendant Yellowhawk, and Defendant shall likewise produce a 30(b)(6) designee prepared to answer questions from the perspective of the entity, whether or not that is based on personal knowledge, on the following questions: