That's the case I was referring to; thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 20, 2013, at 6:02 PM, "Kenneth Curtin" <Ken.Curtin@arlaw.com> wrote: > I believe you are talking about the 4th dca case - very much describes the corporate representative process, but I do not believe mentions hearsay, but the language is good since if such was hearsay, than in a lot of corporate representative depositions you could not produce someone since a lot of what they said would be hearsay. I believe the case was Carriage Hills Condominium, Inc. v. JBH Roofing & Constructors, Inc., 109 So.3d 329, 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). > > > Kenneth M. Curtin, Esquire > Adams and Reese LLP > Direct: (813) 227-5521 > E-Fax: (813) 227-5621 > kenneth.curtin@arlaw.com > www.adamsandreese.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of fred.dudley@hklaw.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:57 PM > To: MBarlow@sbwlegal.com > Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Corporate Representative - hearsay > > If this is a stupid response this is not Fred Dudley but there is a very recent appellate case on this rule that talks about the misconception of having to produce the "most knowledgable" corporate representative. See Fred's last several monthly subcommittee reports since that rascal is currently on vacation in the mountains of western No Carolina trying hard not to type so much stuff on his IPhone (I hear). > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 20, 2013, at 5:43 PM, "Mahlon Barlow" <MBarlow@sbwlegal.com<mailto:MBarlow@sbwlegal.com>> wrote: > > Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1.310 governing depositions provides that in the case of a corporate entity the person designated by the entity shall testify about matters "known or reasonably available to the organization." The corporation has a duty to produce a knowledgeable person. In the case of matters involving a former employee of the organization, that could necessitate an inquiry of the former employee re historical matters so as to gain the necessary "institutional knowledge" to testify. > > It occurs to me that inherent within this procedural process is the need to convey factual/historical information to a corporate representative so that rep can testify as to the information known or available to the organization (similar to conveying factual information to an expert). I cannot find direction from a court as to the application of the hearsay rule in such circumstances. > > Has anyone run into hearsay problems with respect to the designated representative inquiring of other employees/former employees? If so, how was it resolved? Thanks in advance. > > P.S. - If this is a ridiculously stupid question then I am asking it on behalf of Neal Sivyer. > > > Mahlon H. ("Tripp") Barlow > Sivyer Barlow & Watson, P.A. > 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2225 Tampa, Florida 33602 > (813) 221-4242 - phone > (813) 227-8598 - fax mbarlow@sbwlegal.com<mailto:mbarlow@sbwlegal.com> > > Unless otherwise indicated or obvious from the nature of the transmittal, the information contained in this message is attorney-client privileged and/or confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any of the information in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete the message. Thank you > > _______________________________________________ > CLC-Discussion mailing list > CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion > > ________________________________ > > ****IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR (II) PROMOTING, MARKETING, OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTER HEREIN.**** > > ________________________________ > > NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("H&K"), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality. > > _______________________________________________ > CLC-Discussion mailing list > CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion > > > http://www.adamsandreese.com/ > Baton Rouge | Birmingham | Houston | Jackson | Jacksonville | Memphis | Mobile | Nashville | New Orleans | Sarasota | St. Petersburg | Tallahassee | Tampa | Washington, D.C. > The contents of this e-mail and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s). In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege protecting communications between attorneys and their clients. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail. Treasury Circular 230 requires that we inform you that any statements regarding tax matters made herein, including attachments, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties, and such statements are not intended to be used or referred to in any marketing or promotional materials. Additionally, Adams and Reese LLP does not and will not impose any limitation on the disclosure of the tax treatment or tax structure of any transactions to which such statements relate.