The case of the day, Continental Transfer Technique v. Nigeria (D.D.C. 2015), is a coda to the case of the day from January 29. The question related to post-judgment discovery the plaintiff sought to take from Nigeria.

Nigeria sought relief from a FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition notice. For non-US readers, under FRCP 30(b)(6), when a party seeks testimony from ” a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity,” it can provide a list of topics on which it seeks testimony. The deponent then has the obligation to designate a witness to testify on its behalf, and the obligation to educate the witness so that he or she can provide whatever relevant information the entity has.

Nigeria made an interesting argument. It’s a foreign sovereign, and it says that FRCP 30(b)(6) does not expressly mention foreign sovereigns. It also claims that any witness it realistically would designate would be entitled to foreign official immunity or diplomatic immunity. The court ordered further briefing on both points. I’m not sure that either strikes me as persuasive, but I’ll continue to follow this and we’ll see what the judge does with it.