## Facts

- Individuals whose FBI background files were allegedly transferred from the FBI to the White House sued the FBI and the Executive Office of the President (EOP) for asserted privacy violations arising from the “Filegate” controversy.
- During discovery, plaintiffs served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on the EOP seeking testimony about audio/video recording or surveillance devices used in White House and EOP areas, including the White House Counsel’s Office and the Office of the First Lady.
- The EOP moved to quash the notice; the court denied that request and set the permissible scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
- The EOP designated John Dankowski, Director of White House Operations, as its Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the requested topics.
- After the deposition, plaintiffs moved to compel the EOP to re-designate a different Rule 30(b)(6) witness and sought attorneys’ fees and costs, alleging the designee lacked relevant knowledge and preparation, including on alleged secret surveillance capabilities and a voicemail recording system from 1992–1994.

## Issues

1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), whether plaintiffs may compel the EOP to designate a substitute witness when the agency has produced a designee it considers suitable for the noticed topics.
2. Whether the EOP’s designee was so insufficiently prepared or knowledgeable that the court should order re-designation and award attorneys’ fees and costs.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel re-designation of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness.
- The court found the EOP’s selection of the Director of White House Operations was reasonable for testimony about non–Secret Service surveillance systems, given that office’s procurement responsibilities.
- The court concluded plaintiffs had not shown the designee’s preparation or testimony was so deficient as to justify compelled re-designation or sanctions.
- The court denied the request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
- The denial was without prejudice to renewed relief if later-developed facts warranted it.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 30(b)(6) requires an organization to designate one or more persons to testify on its behalf on matters described with reasonable particularity and to prepare the designee to provide the organization’s information within the scope of the notice.
- The organization, not the examining party, controls which individual is designated, so long as the witness can testify for the entity after reasonable preparation.
- A party generally cannot force substitution of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness merely because the witness is not the most knowledgeable possible or cannot answer every question posed.
- Re-designation or fee-shifting is most justified where the organization’s performance is effectively a failure to appear—such as producing an unprepared witness who cannot provide meaningful organizational testimony.

## Conclusion

The court held that the EOP satisfied its Rule 30(b)(6) obligations by producing a reasonably selected and prepared designee on non–Secret Service surveillance systems, and it therefore refused to compel a new witness or impose fees, while leaving room for later relief if additional evidence emerged.


Alexander v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 148 (D.D.C. 1999)