Rule 30 – Depositions by Oral Examination

Amendments Effective Dec. 1, 2015

Amendments | Summary of Changes | Committee Note | Complete Amended Rule | Additional ResourcesRule 30 Amendments in Complete Rule: (a)(2) | (d)(1)


Amended Rule 30

(a) When a Deposition May Be Taken.

* * * * *

(2) With Leave. A party must obtain leave of court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2):

* * * * *

(d) Duration; Sanction; Motion to Terminate or Limit.

(1) Duration. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to one day of 7 hours. The court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.

* * * * *

AmendedEffective
Apr. 29, 2015Dec. 1, 2015
Apr. 30, 2007Dec. 1, 2007
Apr. 17, 2000Dec. 1, 2000
Apr. 22, 1993Dec. 1, 1993
Mar. 2, 1987Aug. 1, 1987
Apr. 29, 1980Aug. 1, 1980
Nov. 20, 1972July 1, 1975
Mar. 1, 1971July 1, 1971
Mar. 30, 1970July 1, 1970
Jan. 21, 1963July 1, 1963

Summary of Changes


Committee Note

Rule 30 is amended in parallel with Rules 31 and 33 to reflect the recognition of proportionality in Rule 26(b)(1).


Complete Amended Rule 30

Rule 30. Depositions by Oral Examination

(a) WHEN A DEPOSITION MAY BE TAKEN.

(1) Without Leave. A party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of court except as provided in Rule 30(a)(2). The deponent’s attendance may be compelled by subpoena under Rule 45.

(2) With Leave. A party must obtain leave of court, and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2):

(A) if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and:

(i) the deposition would result in more than 10 depositions being taken under this rule or Rule 31 by the plaintiffs, or by the defendants, or by the third-party defendants;

(ii) the deponent has already been deposed in the case; or

(iii) the party seeks to take the deposition before the time specified in Rule 26(d), unless the party certifies in the notice, with supporting facts, that the deponent is expected to leave the United States and be unavailable for examination in this country after that time; or

(B) if the deponent is confined in prison.

(b) NOTICE OF THE DEPOSITION; OTHER FORMAL REQUIREMENTS.

(1) Notice in General. A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable written notice to every other party. The notice must state the time and place of the deposition and, if known, the deponent’s name and address. If the name is unknown, the notice must provide a general description sufficient to identify the person or the particular class or group to which the person belongs.

(2) Producing Documents. If a subpoena duces tecum is to be served on the deponent, the materials designated for production, as set out in the subpoena, must be listed in the notice or in an attachment. The notice to a party deponent may be accompanied by a request under Rule 34 to produce documents and tangible things at the deposition.

(3) Method of Recording.

(A) Method Stated in the Notice. The party who notices the deposition must state in the notice the method for recording the testimony. Unless the court orders otherwise, testimony may be recorded by audio, audiovisual, or stenographic means. The noticing party bears the recording costs. Any party may arrange to transcribe a deposition.

(B) Additional Method. With prior notice to the deponent and other parties, any party may designate another method for recording the testimony in addition to that specified in the original notice. That party bears the expense of the additional record or transcript unless the court orders otherwise.

(4) By Remote Means. The parties may stipulate — or the court may on motion order — that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means. For the purpose of this rule and Rules 28(a), 37(a)(2), and 37(b)(1), the deposition takes place where the deponent answers the questions.

(5) Officer’s Duties.

(A) Before the Deposition. Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, a deposition must be conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28. The officer must begin the deposition with an on-the-record statement that includes:

(i) the officer’s name and business address;

(ii) the date, time, and place of the deposition;

(iii) the deponent’s name;

(iv) the officer’s administration of the oath or affirmation to the deponent; and

(v) the identity of all persons present.

(B) Conducting the Deposition; Avoiding Distortion. If the deposition is recorded nonstenographically, the officer must repeat the items in Rule 30(b)(5)(A)(i)–(iii) at the beginning of each unit of the recording medium. The deponent’s and attorneys’ appearance or demeanor must not be distorted through recording techniques.

(C) After the Deposition. At the end of a deposition, the officer must state on the record that the deposition is complete and must set out any stipulations made by the attorneys about custody of the transcript or recording and of the exhibits, or about any other pertinent matters.

(6) Notice or Subpoena Directed to an Organization. In its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination. The named organization must then designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify. A subpoena must advise a nonparty organization of its duty to make this designation. The persons designated must testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization. This paragraph (6) does not preclude a deposition by any other procedure allowed by these rules.

(c) EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION; RECORD OF THE EXAMINATION; OBJECTIONS; WRITTEN QUESTIONS.

(1) Examination and Cross-Examination. The examination and cross-examination of a deponent proceed as they would at trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence, except Rules 103 and 615. After putting the deponent under oath or affirmation, the officer must record the testimony by the method designated under Rule 30(b)(3)(A). The testimony must be recorded by the officer personally or by a person acting in the presence and under the direction of the officer.

(2) Objections. An objection at the time of the examination — whether to evidence, to a party’s conduct, to the officer’s qualifications, to the manner of taking the deposition, or to any other aspect of the deposition — must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to any objection. An objection must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).

(3) Participating Through Written Questions. Instead of participating in the oral examination, a party may serve written questions in a sealed envelope on the party noticing the deposition, who must deliver them to the officer. The officer must ask the deponent those questions and record the answers verbatim.

(d) DURATION; SANCTION; MOTION TO TERMINATE OR LIMIT.

(1) Duration. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to one day of 7 hours. The court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.

(2) Sanction. The court may impose an appropriate sanction — including the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by any party — on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.

(3) Motion to Terminate or Limit.

(A) Grounds. At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. The motion may be filed in the court where the action is pending or the deposition is being taken. If the objecting deponent or party so demands, the deposition must be suspended for the time necessary to obtain an order.

(B) Order. The court may order that the deposition be terminated or may limit its scope and manner as provided in Rule 26(c). If terminated, the deposition may be resumed only by order of the court where the action is pending.

(C) Award of Expenses. Rule 37(a)(5) applies to the award of expenses.

(e) REVIEW BY THE WITNESS; CHANGES.

(1) Review; Statement of Changes. On request by the deponent or a party before the deposition is completed, the deponent must be allowed 30 days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which:

(A) to review the transcript or recording; and

(B) if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them.

(2) Changes Indicated in the Officer’s Certificate. The officer must note in the certificate prescribed by Rule 30(f)(1) whether a review was requested and, if so, must attach any changes the deponent makes during the 30-day period.

(f) CERTIFICATION AND DELIVERY; EXHIBITS; COPIES OF THE TRANSCRIPT OR RECORDING; FILING.

(1) Certification and Delivery. The officer must certify in writing that the witness was duly sworn and that the deposition accurately records the witness’s testimony. The certificate must accompany the record of the deposition. Unless the court orders otherwise, the officer must seal the deposition in an envelope or package bearing the title of the action and marked “Deposition of [witness’s name]” and must promptly send it to the attorney who arranged for the transcript or recording. The attorney must store it under conditions that will protect it against loss, destruction, tampering, or deterioration.

(2) Documents and Tangible Things.

(A) Originals and Copies. Documents and tangible things produced for inspection during a deposition must, on a party’s request, be marked for identification and attached to the deposition. Any party may inspect and copy them. But if the person who produced them wants to keep the originals, the person may:

(i) offer copies to be marked, attached to the deposition, and then used as originals — after giving all parties a fair opportunity to verify the copies by comparing them with the originals; or

(ii) give all parties a fair opportunity to inspect and copy the originals after they are marked — in which event the originals may be used as if attached to the deposition.

(B) Order Regarding the Originals. Any party may move for an order that the originals be attached to the deposition pending final disposition of the case.

(3) Copies of the Transcript or Recording. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, the officer must retain the stenographic notes of a deposition taken stenographically or a copy of the recording of a deposition taken by another method. When paid reasonable charges, the officer must furnish a copy of the transcript or recording to any party or the deponent.

(g) FAILURE TO ATTEND A DEPOSITION OR SERVE A SUBPOENA; EXPENSES. A party who, expecting a deposition to be taken, attends in person or by an attorney may recover reasonable expenses for attending, including attorney’s fees, if the noticing party failed to:

(1) attend and proceed with the deposition; or

(2) serve a subpoena on a nonparty deponent, who consequently did not attend.


Additional Resources

[su_tabs][su_tab title=”Articles“]

ArticleAuthorsPublication & DateRules Discussed
ArticleAuthorsPublication & DateRules Discussed
4 Times Federal Courts Already Applied the New FRCP Amendments in E-Discovery
(registration required)
Zach Warren, Legaltech NewsLegaltech News, March 2, 2016R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
Changes in Federal Rules Result in Reversal of Adverse Inference Sanction: eDiscovery Case Law
Doug Austin (eDiscovery Daily)eDiscovery Daily, February 8, 2016R.37(e)
Preparing for FRCP Changes with EnCase eDiscovery
(registration required)
Guidance SoftwareGuidance Software, December 2015R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
Courts Are Starting to Apply and Interpret FRCP Amendments on e-DiscoveryJoshua M. Hummel (Fox Rothschild)The E-Discovery Stage, December 10, 2015R.26(b)(1)
IG And The New FRCP Rules
(registration required)
Jason R. Baron (Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP)Legaltech news, December 7, 2015R.37(e)
The 2015 Amendments: A Sensible Approach to Spoliation Sanctions?
(registration required)
Scott A. Wandstrat (Arnall Golden Gregory)Daily Report, December 4, 2015R.37(e)
The New Federal Rules Are Taking EffectEmily Dimond (Reed Smith)
Courtney Murphy (Reed Smith)
JD Supra Business Advisor, December 2, 2015R.26(b)(1)
R.34(b)(2)
R.37(e)
Everything You Need to Know About The New FRCP AmendmentsJeff Bennion (Estey & Bomberger LLP)Above the Law, December 1, 2015R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
Congratulations! Now what?Karin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, December 1, 2015R.26(f)
R.34
3 Ways FRCP Amendments Could Affect CompaniesRebekah Mintzer (Corporate Counsel)Corporate Counsel, December 1, 2015R.01
R.04
R.34
R.37
Discovery related amendments to the Federal Rules
(subscription required)
David J. Kessler (Norton Rose Fulbright)
Jami Mills Hibbert (Norton Rose Fulbright)
Alexander Steven Altman (Norton Rose Fulbright)
Norton Rose Fulbright website, December 1, 2015R.01
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(c)
R.34(2)(A)
R.34(2)(B)
R.34(2)(C)
R.37(e)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Ediscovery
Guide

(download)
Kroll OntrackDecember 2015R.01
R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
FRCP Amendments Take Effect, Impacting E-Discovery Practice
(registration required)
H. Christopher Boehning (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)
Daniel J. Toal (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Ross M. Gotler)
Lidia M. Kekis (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)
New York Law Journal, December 1, 2015R.01
R.26
R.37
Early and Often
(download)
Salvatore Mancuso (RVM Enterprises, Inc.)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1)(A)
R.16(b)(1)(B)
R.16(b)(2)(B)
R.26(f)
Gear Up for Acceleration and Collaboration
(download)
Mark E. McGrath (Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1)
R.16(b)(2)
R.16(b)(3)(B)(v)
R.26(d)(2)
R.26(f)
R.34
Changes Favor Well-Prepared Parties
(download)
Tom Spaulding (Inventus LLC)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.16(b)(1)(B)
R.16(b)(2)
R.16(b)(3)(B)(v)
R.26(f)
Getting to the Heart of the Matter
(download)
Aaron Pierce (LexisNexis Litigation Software)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
Proportion – Not Perfection
(download)
Makenzie Windfelder (McCarter & English LLP)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.37(e)
No Time to Relax
(download)
Olivia Gerroll (D4, LLC)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.37(e)
The Real Problem: Technology
(download)
Dan Regard (iDiscovery Solutions)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11
Proportionality: Old Wine, New Bottle?
(download)
Anthony M. Candido (Clifford Chance LLP)
Sarah A. Sulkowski (Clifford Chance LLP)
Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
R.26(b)(2)(C)(iii)
Insofar As Just and Practicable
(download)
Mark Euler (Epiq Systems)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11
A Discovery Sideshow?
(download)
Maureen O’Neill (DiscoverReady)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
R.26(b)(2)(C)
R.26(f)
Low Pro le, High Impact
(download)
Aarin Scholz Jenson (BakerHostetler)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(f)
R.34(2)(B)
Relief from ESI Over-Preservation
(download)
Carmen G. McLean (Jones Day)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
R.37(e)(1)
R.37(e)(2)
Conclusion: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Are you Ready?Karin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 30, 2015
Important Changes to the Federal RulesAlexander Rothschild (Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP)
Louis Rousseau (Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP)
JD Supra Business Advisor, November 30, 2015R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1(B)
R.16(b)(2)
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(d)(2)
R.26(f)(3)(C)
R.37(e)(1)
R.37(e)(2)
ESI & eDiscovery FRCP changes @ 12/1/15 — while you were leftover-eatingRobert D. Brownstone (Fenwick & West LLP)Lexology, November 29, 2015R.04(m)
R.16(b)
R.16(c)
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(c)
R.26(d)
R.26(f)
R.34(b)
R.37(e)
Amendments to Federal Civil Rules Governing Discovery and Preservation of ESI Set to Take Effect December 1, 2015Tony Lathrop (Moore & Van Allen PLLC)JD Supra Business Advisor Litigation Blog, November 25, 2015R.01
R.04
R.04(d)
R.16
R.26
R.30
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.36
R.37(a)
R.37(e)
R.55(c)
R.84
Day 4: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 34 ObjectionsKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 25, 2015R.34
Day 3: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – PreservationKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 24, 2015R.16
R.26
R.37(e)
ACEDS Interview: Judge Paul Grimm Explains the New Federal RulesJason KrauseACEDS website, November 24, 2015R.16
R.26
Day 2: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Early Case AssessmentKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 23, 2015R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
Day 1: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – ProportionalityKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 20, 2015R.26
Wait, What Does Spoliation Mean Now? A Look at the New FRCP Rule 37(e)
(subscription required)
Zach Warren (Legaltech News)Legaltech News, November 17, 2015R.37(e)
A Second Look At “Reasonable Steps”: A New Role For a Familiar eDiscovery ConceptThomas Y. AllmanBloomberg Law, November 13, 2015R.16
R.26(b)
R.37(e)
Proportionality and the Scope of Discovery in 2015 Amendments
(registration required)
Scott A. Wandstrat (Arnall Golden Gregory)Daily Report, November 6, 2015R.26(b)(1)
A New Era of Cooperation for E-Discovery Rules?
(registration required)
Scott A. Wandstrat (Arnall Golden Gregory)Daily Report, October 9, 2015R.01
The 2015 Civil Rules Package As Transmitted to CongressThomas Y. AllmanDefense Counsel Journal, October 2015R.01
R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1)
R.16(b)(2)
R.16(b)(3)(B)
R.16(b)(3)(B)(iii)
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(b)(2)(B)
R.26(b)(2)(C)(iii)
R.26(c)
R.26(c)(1)(B)
R.26(d)(2)
R.26(d)(3)
R.26(f)
R.26(f)(3)(C)
R.26(f)(3)(D)
R.26(g)
R.30
R.30(a)(2)
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.34(b)(2)(A)
R.34(b)(2)(B)
R.34(b)(2)(C)
R.36
R.37(a)(3)(B)(iv)
R.37(b)(2)(A)
R.37(e)
R.37(e)(1)
R.37(e)(2)
R.55(c)
Issuing Timely Litigation Holds in Auto-Delete Environments: The Case Law and the New F.R.C.P. 37
(download)
Anne Kershaw (Knowledge Strategy Solutions)
Brian Ramkissoon
August 11, 2015R.37(e)
Just Follow the Rules! FRCP amendments could be e-discovery game changer
(download)
Jennifer A. Brennan (iDiscovery Solutions)
John M. Facciola (Retired U.S. Magistrate Judge)
Mary M. Rowland (U.S. Magistrate Judge, Northern District of Illinois)
Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, July/August 2015R.16
R.26(b)
R.34
R.37(e)
New Rules, New Opportunities
(download)
David G. Campbell (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Arizona)99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 18–25R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
R.84
The Nuts and Bolts
(download)
David F. Levi (Duke Law School)
David G. Campbell (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Arizona)
John G. Koetl (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York)
Chilton Varner (King & Spalding)
Derek P. Pullan (Judge, Utah Fourth Judicial District)
99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 26-34R.16
R.26
R.37
R.84
Rule 37(e) - The New Law of Electronic Spoliation
(download)
Gregory P. Joseph (Hage Aaronson LLC)99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 35-42R.37
From Rule Text to Reality - Achieving Proportionality in Practice
(download)
Lee H. Rosenthal (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of Texas)
Steven S. Gensler (University of Oklahoma College of Law)
99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 43-46R.01
R.16
R.26
R.34
Guidelines and Practices for Implementing the 2015 Discovery Amendments to Achieve Proportionality
(download)
Duke Law School Center for Judicial Studies99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 47–60R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
The New ESI Sanctions Framework Under the Proposed Rule 37(e) AmendmentsPhilip Favro (Recommind)Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, Volume XXI, Issue 3, March 20, 2015R.37(e)
The 2015 Civil Rules Package As Approved By the Judicial ConferenceThomas Y. AllmanAmerican Bar Association, March 11, 2015R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.26(b)
R.26(c)
R.30
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.36
R.37
R.37(e)
1st Annual Federal Judges Survey: E-Discovery Best Practices & Trends
(download, registration required)
ExterroFebruary 2, 2015R.26(b)(1)
What Does the Future of E-Discovery Look Like Under the (soon to be) Updated FRCP? A ROUNDTABLE PANEL DISCUSSION
(download, registration required)
ExterroNovember 3, 2014
Advisory Committee Makes Unexpected Changes to 37(e), Approves Duke PackageTera E. Brostoff (Bloomberg BNA)Bloomberg BNA, April 11, 2014R.37(e)
[/su_tab][su_tab title=”Conferences“]
ConferenceDate & LocationSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
ConferenceDate & LocationSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
K&L Gates, Federal Rule Changes Affect e-Discovery - Are You Ready This Time? (Pittsburgh)
(registration required)
December 3, 2015, 8:30 am - 12:15 pm Eastern, Pittsburgh
K&L Gates, Federal Rule Changes Affect e-Discovery - Are You Ready This Time? (Seattle)
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:30 - 5:30 pm Pacific, Seattle
The American Bar Association Section of Litigation and the Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies, Hello “Proportionality,” Goodbye “Reasonably Calculated”: Reinventing Case Management and Discovery Under the ​2015 Civil Rules Amendments
(registration & payment required)
Nov. 10, 2015: New York City
Nov. 12, 2015: Philadelphia
Nov. 12, 2015: Newark
Dec. 3, 2015: St. Louis
Dec. 4, 2015: Atlanta
Dec. 7, 2015: Chicago
Dec. 8, 2015: Washington, DC
Jan. 27, 2016: Los Angeles
Jan. 28, 2016: San Francisco
March 3, 2016: Phoenix
March 4, 2016: Denver
March 31, 2016: Dallas
TBD: Miami
Lee H. Rosenthal (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of Texas)
Steven S. Gensler (University of Oklahoma College of Law)
[/su_tab][su_tab title=”Decisions“]
NameRules Discussed
NameRules Discussed
INTERNMATCH, INC. v. NXTBIGTHING, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-05438-JST. (N.D.CA. Feb. 8, 2016)R.37(e)
Kissing Camels Surgery Center v. Centura Health Corporation (D. Colo., Jan. 22, 2016)R.34
Nuvasive, Inc. v. Madsen Med. Inc., No. 13cv2077 BTM(RBB) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016)R.37(e)
Gilead Sciences v. Merck (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016)R.26(b)(1)
CAT3 v. Black Lineage (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2016)R.37(e)
[/su_tab][su_tab title=”Presentations“]
PresentationAuthorRules Discussed
PresentationAuthorRules Discussed
Proposed Civil Rules Amendments
(download)
John Barkett (Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P.)R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
R.84
[/su_tab][su_tab title=”Webinars“]
WebinarDateSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
WebinarDateSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
Clear Law Institute webinar, The 2015 Amendments to the FRCP, Part II: Rule 26, Proportionality, Judicial Intervention, and Mastering the Discovery Juggernaut
(registration & payment required)
January 21, 2016, 12:00 - 1:30 pm CentralKenneth R. Berman, Moderator (Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP)
Charles R. Bennett Jr.
John G. Koeltl (Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York)
Martha Mazzone (Fidelity Investments)
Carmen G McLean
R.26(f)
Clear Law Institute webinar, New eDiscovery Federal Rules Changes
(registration & payment required)
December 18, 2015, 2:00 - 3:15 pm CentralRobert D. Brownstone (Fenwick & West LLP)R.26
R.26(f)
R.37(e)
Bloomberg BNA webinar, An Ounce of Prevention: What Patent Litigators and Litigants Need to Know About Amendments to the Federal Rules
(registration & payment required)
December 16, 2015, 10:00 - 11:00 am CentralWilliam Cory Spence (SpencePC)
Kenneth R. Adamo (Kirkland & Ellis LLP)
Bloomberg BNA webinar, Amending the Federal Rules: Intended and Unintended Consequences
(registration required)
December 8, 2015, 12:00 - 1:30 pm CentralRonald Hedges (Ronald J. Hedges LLC)
Craig B. Shaffer (U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of Colorado)
Thomas Y. Allman (University of Cincinnati College of Law)
Kenneth J. Withers (The Sedona Conference)
Dena C. Sharp (Girard Gibbs LLP)
Ariana J. Tadler (Milberg LLP)
Nextpoint webinar, Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Winter '15)
(registration required)
December 3, 2015, 1:30 - 2:00 pm CentralJulianne Walsh (Nextpoint)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, 3 E-Discovery Trends You Need to Prepare for in 2016
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 4:30 - 5:30 pm CentralBill Tolson (Director of Product Marketing, Actiance)
Patrick Fuller (Director of Legal Analytics, ELM Solutions)
David Houlihan (Principal Analyst, Blue Hill Research)
EDRM E-Discovery Day webinar, Using Advanced Analytics Techniques to Meet the Proportionality Requirements of the new Federal Rules
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 3:00 - 4:00 pm CentralBob Ambrogi (Legal Journalist and Director of Communications, Catalyst)
George Socha (Co-Founder, EDRM)
John Tredennick (Founder & CEO, Catalyst)
Gabe Luchetta (Product Manager, Catalyst)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, Make Your Job Easier with
E-Discovery Technology

(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 3:00 - 4:00 pm CentralDavid Yerich (Director of E-Discovery, UnitedHealth Group)
Tom Mullane (E-Discovery Specialist, United Technology Corporation)
Tara Jones (Lead Paralegal - E-Discovery and Consumer Litigation, AOL, Inc.)
M. Lee Smith Publishers/BLR E-Discovery Day webinar, Amendments to Federal E-Discovery Rules Take Effect December 1: Are You Ready?
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 2:00 - 3:00 pm CentralTom Shaw (Assistant General Counsel; Legal Department, CCA Facility Support Center, Nashville)
W. Russell Taber, III (Attorney; Riley Warnock & Jacobson PLC, in Nashville)
EDRM E-Discovery Day webinar, eMSAT-1: Understand and Acting on the Results
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:30 - 2:30 pm CentralGeorge Socha (Co-Founder, EDRM)
Tom Gelbmann (Co-Founder, EDRM)
Tiana Van Dyk (Litigation Support Manager, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, Predictive Coding 3.0
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:30 - 2:00 pm CentralRalph Losey (E-Discovery Blogger / Attorney, e-Discovery Team Blog)
Actiance E-Discovery Day webinar, FRCP Changes: What, Exactly, are Reasonable Steps to Preserve ESI?
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:00 - 2:00 pm CentralRobert A. Cruz (Senior Director of Information Governance, Actiance, Inc.)
Bill Tolson (Director of Product Marketing, Actiance)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, Taking Advantage of the New FRCP E-Discovery Amendments
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 12:00 - 1:00 pm CentralGeorge Socha (Co-Founder, EDRM)
Craig Ball (Attorney / E-Discovery Blogger, Ball in Your Court Blog)
Hon. Xavier Rodriguez (District Judge, Western District of Texas)
Actiance E-Discovery Day webinar, A Closer Look at Social Media eDiscovery
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 11:30 am - 12:30 pm CentralJim Shook (Director of eDiscovery and Compliance Practice, EMC)
Bill Tolson (Director of Product Marketing, Actiance)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, 2015 E-Discovery Case Law: Sanction Cases You Need to Know
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 10:30 - 11:30 am CentralHon. Joy Conti (Chief District Judge, Western District of Pennsylvania)
Gareth Evans (Co-Chair E-Discovery Practice Group, Gibson Dunn)
Bob Rohlf (General Counsel, Exterro)
ABA webinar, The December 1, 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(registration & payment required)
November 23, 2015, 12:00 - 1:00 pm CentralDavid G. Campbell (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Arizona)
John G. Koetl (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York)
Paul W. Grimm (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Maryland)
EDRM webinar, Proportionality and the New Rules, sponsored by LexisNexis
(on-demand, registration required)
Recorded October 27, 2015John Barkett (Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP)
George Socha (EDRM)
Tom Gelbmann (EDRM)
R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.30
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.37
R.84
EDRM webinar, Relativity Fest 2015 Judicial Panel
(on-demand, registration required)
October 12, 2015Judge Nora Barry Fischer
Judge Andrew Peck
Judge Xavier Rodriguez
Judge David Waxse
David Horrigan (moderator)
[/su_tab][/su_tabs]mnfilter=true datatables_fixedheader=top datatables_fixedheader_offsettop=86 /]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email