The defendants brought a motion by way of a special case to determine whether their corporate representative was required to answer questions on discovery based on personal knowledge acquired outside his capacity as an officer or employee of the defendants.
The representative had previously worked for a related non-party corporation.
The court held that the representative is not required to answer questions based on personal knowledge acquired in another capacity, as doing so would effectively allow discovery of a non-party without leave.
However, if the representative possesses personal knowledge that the corporate defendant would be required to disclose anyway, he should provide it for efficiency.
