Verrill Dana’s Silvestri Submits Letter on Rule 30(b)(6) on Behalf of American College of Trial Lawyers

May 8, 2017 Press Releases

(May 8, 2017) – On behalf of the American College of Trial Lawyers, Verrill Dana trial attorney, Frank J. Silvestri, Jr., Chair of the College's Federal Civil Procedure Committee, submitted a letter to Judge John Bates, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the United States Judicial Conference, on the proposed Study of Rule 30(b)(6) Revisions, stating amendments to the Rule are not warranted at this time.

The Advisory Committee had received suggestions for possible amendments to the Rule, including:

  • whether responses at a 30(b)(6) deposition are judicial admissions
  • whether to prohibit contention questions at 30(b)(6) depositions
  • whether to provide a procedure for objecting to a 30(b)(6) notice
  • whether to require a corporation to produce someone with first-hand knowledge of the noticed topics
  • how to count the number of designees and the length of multi-topic depositions for purposes of the limitations imposed by the rules
  • whether the rule should allow or prohibit questioning a witness on topics outside the scope of the notice,
  • elaboration of the term "reasonable particularity"
  • whether there should be a limit on the number of topics in a 30(b)(6) notice
  • how to proceed when the organization cannot identify anyone with knowledge of the matter
  • whether to require court permission for multiple 30(b)(6) depositions
  • protection of discovery into preparation of the witness(es), and
  • whether there should be additional protections for non-parties.

The College's Federal Civil Procedure Committee appointed a subcommittee to delve into the issues raised regarding the Rule during the Advisory Committee's meeting in Washington, D.C., attended by Silvestri. That subcommittee came to the conclusion that the suggested amendments are not warranted after considering letters from both individual American Bar Association members addressing suggested amendments, as well as from the National Employment Lawyers Association opposing those suggested amendments. Its view was adopted by the full Civil Procedure Committee and approved by the College's Executive Committee.

The letter can be found on the Federal Rules of Practice & Procedure section of the U.S. Courts website. The suggestion was also forwarded to the Chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, as well as to the Reporters of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

On April 25, Frank attended the meeting of the Civil Rules Advisory Committee in Austin, Texas for updates on a variety of significant matters, including Rule 30(b)(6). After a lengthy discussion, the Advisory Committee decided that its own Rule 30(b)(6) Subcommittee should continue its work and focus on a couple of changes that might help lawyers defuse disputes when dealing with the rule. High on the list would be a clarification that 30(b)(6) testimony does not constitute a judicial admission, and possibly a directive that contention questions to a 30(b)(6) witness are inappropriate.

Silvestri's practice is focused on representing clients in business disputes. He has litigated partnership and corporate controversies including breach of fiduciary duty, corporate governance and securities claims; unfair trade practice, business tort and antitrust claims; healthcare matters; and real property claims.

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. To learn more visit

Firm Highlights


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...


Favorable Decision for Corinth Pellets' Fire Damage

On February 24, Business Insurance released an article, "Arch failed to properly notify policyholder of nonrenewal," referring to the Corinth Pellets, LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co. et al. case that favored Corinth Pellets...


Privileged Conversations: Attorney General v. Facebook

On April 1, ACC Docket published an article, "Privileged Conversations: Ruling in US Facebook Case Clarifies Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine." Privileged Conversations is a series of interviews on in-house privilege and ACC's...


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...


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...


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...


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...


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...


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

U.S. Supreme Court building

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...

Contact Verrill at (855) 307 0700