The corporation does not necessarily have to designate the person most knowledgeable on the topic; it must only designate a person who has consented to testify on its behalf and who is prepared and equipped to testify to the “matters known or reasonable available” to the corporation on the chosen topic.  Generally, however, the corporation chooses an officer, director, or managing agent, because it is required to provide a deponent with meaningful knowledge of the specified topics.  The Arizona Court of Appeals has held that “Providing an uninformed warm body for a Rule 30 deposition approximates providing no one at all. . . . [W]hen a deponent does not answer legitimate questions asked at a deposition, the conduct is the same as if he did not attend at all, allowing the court to impose sanctions. . . .” Groat v. Equity Am. Ins. Co., 180 Ariz. 342, 346 (App. 1994).

The corporation has the option to designate different people to testify on different topics, or one person to testify for the entire deposition.  Either way, the testimony becomes the sworn testimony of the corporation itself.  Additionally, a person’s testimony at a corporate deposition does not preclude that person being required to also give separate testimony in his or her individual capacity.

ARBITRATION looks more like an informal trial.  Both sides present their case, including evidence and arguments, to a neutral arbitrator, who then renders a decision just as a judge would in court.  In Maricopa County, Arizona, cases seeking less than $50,000 in damages are required to go to an arbitrator.  The arbitrator’s decision, however, generally may be appealed to the Superior Court by either party.  In some cases, where the parties have agreed by contract that a case will go to binding arbitration rather than to a court, the arbitrator’s decision may be final, with no rights of appeal.  Be aware of such arbitration clauses in contracts.

This first post will address something that I have told nearly all of my clients:  Litigation is usually expensive, lengthy, and takes an emotional toll; therefore, suing someone is a decision that should be made with care.  Even in a case where you believe you are 100% right and have obviously been wronged, you will not be spared the expense and effort required by litigation.  The other side almost always believes in its position as much as you do.  Cases can easily take two years or more to litigate.  Some claims allow the winner to recoup its attorneys’ fees from the loser, but the litigant still must be able to fund the litigation until a winner and loser can be declared.  And there are no guarantees.  Why do I tell you this?  After all, I make my living representing people who DO want to litigate.  I tell you this because I don’t want anyone getting into something they regret.  I want litigants to be as prepared as possible for what lies ahead.  I want litigants to make an informed decision, so that once they decide to go to court, they’re all in.  I want litigants to have reasonable expectations and I want those expectations to be met.  I have seen many people cause themselves a lot of suffering because they made decisions about litigation with their emotions—especially anger.  Litigation is a financial/business decision and should be treated as such.  In many cases it makes sense, and thank goodness we have a justice system that allows litigants to bring claims against those who have wronged them.  Such a decision, however, should always be made with one’s head and not one’s heart.  Indeed, one of the benefits of having a lawyer is to help clients manage their emotions—to give them just the facts and probabilities, or, in other words, to help them use their own heads.  Here’s to a year full of smart decisions!