LAS BRISAS
v.
EMPIRE INDEMNITY INSURANCE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This is a procedural order rescheduling the final pretrial conference and addressing a defendant's continuance request due to unavailability of its designated corporate representative at trial. The court directs counsel to consider case law regarding the limitations on corporate representative testimony at trial.
The court denied the immediate continuance request but indicated the matter would be addressed at the rescheduled final pretrial conference. The court emphasized that corporate designees may testify to corporate knowledge during depositions but may be limited at trial regarding matters outside their personal knowledge that constitute inadmissible hearsay.
[1] A final pretrial conference may be rescheduled to address arguments for a continuance, including the unavailability of a designated corporate representative.
[2] A corporate designee testifying at trial under Fed. …
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“although Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) allows a corporate designee to testify to matters within the corporation's knowledge during deposition, at trial the designee may not testify to matters outside his own knowledge to the extent that information is hearsay not falling within one of the authorized exceptions”
Establishes the distinction between permissible corporate designee testimony at depositions versus trial limitations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant seeks a continuance because its designated corporate representative is unavailable during the scheduled trial term. The case involves a disp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Hearsay Exceptions cases and more on FLexlaw
This case was before the Court for a status conference on January 13, 2025. For the reasons stated on the record, the final pretrial conference will be moved to February 6, 2025, at 2:00 pm. Trial will otherwise remain as scheduled, and Defendant's arguments for a continuance will be addressed at the final pretrial conference. Of note, Defendant seeks a continuance because its designated corporate representative is now unavailable during the scheduled trial term. The Court directs defense counsel to consider the following case law in advance of the rescheduled final pretrial conference, as it might impact how to proceed. See Indus. Eng'g & Dev., Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., No. 8:12-CV-691-T-24-МАР, 2014 WL 4983912, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2014) (explaining that although Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) allows a
corporate designee to testify to matters within the corporation's knowledge during deposition, at trial the designee may not testify to matters outside his own knowledge to the extent that information is hearsay not falling within one of the authorized exceptions); see also Kraft Foods Glob., Inc. v. United Egg Producers, Inc., No. 11-CV-8808, 2023 WL 5647204, at *13 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2023) (discussing how corporate deposition testimony will be treated at trial); In re RFC & RESCAP Liquidating Tr. Action, No. 013CV3451SRNHB, 2020 WL 504661, at *6 (D. Minn. Jan. 31, 2020) (same).
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 13, 2025.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Las Brisas v. Empire Indem. Ins., 2014 WL 4983912 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…directs defense counsel to consider the following case law in advance of the rescheduled final pretrial conference, as it might impact how to proceed. See Indus. Eng'g & Dev., Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., No. 8:12-CV-691-T-24-MAP, 2014 WL 4983912, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2014) (explaining that although Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) allows a corporate designee to testify to matters within the corporation's knowledge during deposition, at trial the designee may not testify to matters outs…1 / 2
-
Radke v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. (S.D. Fla. 2021)
-
Powers v. Target Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2020)…lude any allegedly improper evidence that was not produced in the abstract. See Santiago v. Sanders, No. 14-61505-CIV, 2015 WL 12860500, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2015); see also Indus. Eng’g & Dev., Inc. v. Static Control, No. 8:12-cv-691-T-24-MAP, 2014 WL 4983912, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2014) (denying without prejudice motion in limine seeking to exclude all documents not produced in discovery noting that “[w]hile evidence not produced in response to discovery requests before the close of discovery is gene…
Authorities Cited
- Las Brisas v. Empire Indem. Ins., 2014 WL 4983912 (M.D. Fla. 2025)