Publications & Podcasts

Letter Submitted on Behalf of American College of Trial Lawyers to Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Proposed Amendment to Rule 30(b)(6)

April 6, 2018 Published Works

In his role as Chair of the American College of Trial Lawyers' (ACTL) Federal Civil Procedure Committee, Frank Silvestri submitted to the Civil Rules Advisory Committee a letter on the Proposed Amendment of Rule 30(b)(6). The letter, submitted under Frank Silvestri's name and on behalf of the American College of Trial Lawyers, may be accessed here.

This past November, a subcommittee of the Civil Rules Advisory Committee proposed an amendment to Rule 30(b)(6) that would add the following sentence:

"Before [or promptly after] giving the notice or serving a subpoena, the party must [should] confer [or attempt to confer] with the deponent about the number and description of the matters of examination."

After discussing the proposal, the Civil Rules Advisory Committee concluded that further consideration should be given to the amendment before the proposal is voted on at the committee's upcoming meeting in April 2018.

According to Silvestri, the members of the American College of Trial Lawyers believe that the "Rules, particularly Rules 26 and 37, provide adequate direction to the parties to discuss among themselves issues which arise during discovery, as well as means to resolve discovery disputes." Furthermore, the College stated that adding a mandate for Rule 30(b)96) deposition notices and subpoenas would be "duplicative and create unneeded burdens on the parties."

About the American College of Trial Lawyers: The American College of Trial Lawyers is an invitation only fellowship of exceptional trial lawyers of diverse backgrounds from the United States and Canada. The College maintains and seeks to improve the standards of trial practice, professionalism, ethics, and the administration of justice through education and public statements on important legal issues relating to its mission. The College strongly supports the independence of the judiciary, trial by jury, respect for the rule of law, access to justice, and fair and just representation of all parties to legal proceedings.

Firm Highlights

Matter

Patent Litigation: Semiconductors

Represented semiconductor manufacturer in patent case against competitor in litigation in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in which both sides asserted patents relating to power management and A-D converters; conducted Markman...

Publication/Podcast

Domestic Discovery for Foreign Arbitrations? – Now It’s the Supreme Court’s Turn

U.S. Supreme Court building
Matter

Patent Litigation: NPEs

Represented many companies over the years in patent litigations brought by numerous non-practicing entities, including in U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Texas, District of Delaware and Northern District of California; aggressively...

Matter

Patent & Trade Secret Litigation: IT Infrastructure Software

Represented large provider of IT management solutions in lawsuits in U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of New York and the Northern District of California against competitor alleging infringement of patents relating to...

Matter

Patent Litigation: MEMS Microphones

Represented large semiconductor manufacturer in an ITC investigation and parallel district court proceeding in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, defending against two patents owned by a competitor relating to microelectromechanical...

Publication/Podcast

Make Your Own Law with Tom Bean

On March 2, attorney Tom Bean appeared on a Pod617 - The Boston Podcast Network episode, "Make Your Own Law with Tom Bean." He discusses what it takes to get a proposed law on...

Matter

Patent Litigation: Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Represented small biotech company and two academic researchers against large pharmaceutical company in dispute over inventorship of several patents relating to mesenchymal stem cells and their uses, as well as defending against numerous state...

Publication/Podcast

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Clarifies the Contours of the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine in Internal Investigations

In Attorney General v. Facebook, Inc. , No. SJC-12496 (March 24, 2021), [i] the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified the scope of protection afforded by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine to...

Publication/Podcast

Finding Teeth in Massachusetts' Prompt Payment Act

In Tocci v. IRIV Partners, LLC, Boston Harbor Industrial Development LLC and Hudson Insurance Co. (November 19, 2020, Sup. Ct. 19-405), the Massachusetts Superior Court granted summary judgment on a contractor’s breach of contract...

News

65 Verrill Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers® 2022, Including Eight Named Lawyers of the Year

(August 31, 2021) – 65 Verrill attorneys were recognized as "Best Lawyers" by Best Lawyers® 2022 , including 8 attorneys named “Lawyer of the Year,” a distinguished recognition for only a single lawyer in...

Contact Verrill at (855) 307 0700