[CLC-Discussion] Corporate Representative - hearsay

[fred.dudley at hklaw.com]

If this is a stupid response this is not Fred Dudley but there is a very recent appellate case on this rule that talks about the misconception of having to produce the "most knowledgable" corporate representative. See Fred's last several monthly subcommittee reports since that rascal is currently on vacation in the mountains of western No Carolina trying hard not to type so much stuff on his IPhone (I hear).

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 20, 2013, at 5:43 PM, "Mahlon Barlow" <MBarlow at sbwlegal.com<mailto:MBarlow at sbwlegal.com>> wrote:

Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1.310 governing depositions provides that in the case of a corporate entity the person designated by the entity shall testify about matters “known or reasonably available to the organization.”    The corporation has a duty to produce a knowledgeable person.   In the case of matters involving a former employee of the organization, that could necessitate an inquiry of the former employee re historical matters so as to gain the necessary “institutional knowledge” to testify.

It occurs to me that inherent within this procedural process is the need to convey factual/historical information to a corporate representative so that rep can testify as to the information known or available to the organization (similar to conveying factual information to an expert).  I cannot find direction from a court as to the application of the hearsay rule in such circumstances.

Has anyone run into hearsay problems with respect to the designated representative inquiring of other employees/former employees?   If so, how was it resolved?   Thanks in advance.

P.S. – If this is a ridiculously stupid question then I am asking it on behalf of Neal Sivyer.


Mahlon H. ("Tripp") Barlow
Sivyer Barlow & Watson, P.A.
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2225 Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 221-4242 - phone
(813) 227-8598 - fax  mbarlow at sbwlegal.com<mailto:mbarlow at sbwlegal.com>

Unless otherwise indicated or obvious from the nature of the transmittal, the information contained in this message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any of the information in it is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete the message.  Thank you

_______________________________________________
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion

________________________________

****IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.****

________________________________

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.