WPCf  LЬ}oJ,X,v*R3]UZzMȅg32DOW5z¢MNVSt}M='XF}c[0;{$ e!,WmMV%<,FD-/} Oun)E]NW>:45[=.|bэia jnf?\ly3kĕz#n(S1\P=i uI_TntqQZb8ѯLx_վc pLhfPFmT~F""h#婌Š7CSAzk4E\[lfN LC"I;ֿӼil/$/ +SDo`su- `߲,0gj4 `n K;)P*V\x#j !,ORWNgx˧[ѱ)ly:fv`aEh?ȱƂb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1 0DN;= $E/ 1:oBBBBBBBSSSSSSSSSSb[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ 0cccc BNN 0k D3 D-B 0Koo AS  0 0Dw AHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0u+L (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularL-(bk1` C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      2  D  _ThepointofcontentioninthisappealisMr.PirtlestestimonyonbehalfofDobbsBrothers.Allreferences  inthisopiniontoMr.PirtlestestimonyactuallyrefertothetestimonyoftheDobbsBrotherscorporationandour x decisiontorefertoitasMr.Pirtlestestimonyisonlyusedforclarity.  R$      4  D  _TheextenttowhichaRule30.02(6)depositionbindsacorporationhasnotbeendeterminedbyTennessee  courts.  R$      5  D  _ SeeReillyv.NatwestMarketsGroup,Inc. ,181F.3d253,268(2ndCir.1999); ProtectiveNat.Ins.v.  CommonwealthIns. ,137F.R.D.267,27778(D.Neb.1989); Kingv.Pratt&Whitney ,161F.R.D.475,476(S.D.Fla. x 1995); DravoCorp.v.LibertyMut.Ins.Co. ,164F.R.D.70,75(D.Neb.1995).  R$      6  D  _Mr.BowlingsoughttorestrictanytestimonyinconsistentwithMr.Pirtlespretrialtestimonyonbehalfof  DobbsBrothers.Specifically,Mr.Bowlingobjectedtoanytestimonyduringthetrialinwhichitwassuggestedthat x histerminationwasbaseduponanythingotherthanMr.Pirtlesobservations. e R$      7  D  _ThiscourtstressesthatwearemakingnointerpretationonwhatextentRule30.02(6)oftheTennesseeRules  ofCivilProcedurebindsacorporation,assuchaninterpretationisnotrequiredtoreviewthiscase.  R$      1  D  _Rule10(CourtofAppeals). (b)MemorandumOpinion. TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudges  participatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhena x formalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbe @ designated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasonin X asubsequentunrelatedcase.  R$      3  D  _ThefederalcasescitedwerefederalcourtinterpretationsofRule30(b)(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivil  Procedure. - -(|G2$ !.8Ddd8         0  D d(|3A$ !.8Ddd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.8Ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ddd8     _  D8 XXdd8  @ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#D #Ԉ ,   June18,2001Session X X XD #DXX #ALFREDLEEBOWLINGv.DOBBSBROTHERSBUICKPONTIAC,INC.,  ` d/b/aDOBBSBROS.BUICKPONTIAC/MITSUBISHI,INC.X XD  ( x @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty 0  @@No.1079462FloydPeete,Chancellor  p @@*AV) ` dE<` A @  @@TTNo.W200001476_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust3,_2001_ ?  AV) ` dE<` A      X8XXX Thisappealarisesfromthetrialcourtsdenialofamotion inlimine .Employeewasfiredfromhis  positionatCompany.Atapretrialdeposition,ManagertestifiedonbehalfofCompanythat   EmployeewasterminatedduetoManagersobservationofEmployeeslackofsalesskills.  EmployeefiledamotionseekingtobartestimonyofotherCompanyemployeesduringthetrial.  TheseemployeesweretotestifyonEmployeeslackofsalesskills.Employeearguedthatthis ~ testimonywouldbeinconsistentwithCompanyspretrialdepositionthatEmployeewasterminated j duetoManagersobservationofhislackofsalesskills.Weaffirm. V  #X XX X8##DXX #X XDTenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed;and .~ Remanded  n   #DX #X X.DDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.HighersandHollyK. N Lillard,J.J.,joined. > ConnieWestbrook,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,AlfredLeeBowling.   JamesStephenKing,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DobbsBrothersBuickPontiac,Inc., "! d/b/aDobbsBros.BuickPontiac/Mitsubishi,Inc. #" m  MEMORANDUMOPINION #DXX #X XD #  1       ~% $ #DXX #  X XD X8XXX       OnApril16,1996,AlfredLeeBowlingwasfiredfromhispositionasFinanceand Z'"& InsuranceManager(F&IManager)atDobbsBrothersBuickPontiac,Inc.(DobbsBrothers).Mr. F(#' Bowlingarguedthathewasfiredbecausehewasrequiredtoperformjurydutythepreviousday.  DobbsBrothersstatedthatMr.BowlingwasterminatedfromtheF&IManagerpositionbecause  hissalesskillswereinadequate;hehadtroubleprocessingpaperwork;andhedidnothavethe  abilitytoperformhisduties.Afterthetermination,DobbsBrothersofferedMr.Bowlingacar t salesposition.Mr.Bowlingrejectedthisofferandfiledasuitforwrongfuldischargeagainst ` DobbsBrothers. L    Atapretrialdeposition,JackPirtle,thegeneralmanagerofDobbsBrothers,testifiedon $ t behalfofthecorporation. #  2      ׀Mr.PirtlestatedthathehadpersonallyobservedMr.Bowlingslack  ` ofsalesskillsandthattheseobservationsplayedaroleinMr.Bowlingstermination.The  L  remainderofMr.Pirtlestestimonywasapointofcontentionbetweentheparties.Mr.Bowling  8  arguedthatMr.Pirtletestifiedthathisterminationwasbasedsolelyonthepersonalobservations $  ofMr.Pirtle.DobbsBrothersarguedthatMr.Pirtlealsotouchedonseveralotherissuesduring   hisdeposition,includingMr.Bowlingslackofsalesskillsandhisfailuretoprocessallrequired   paperwork.Inaddition,DobbsBrothersclaimsthatMr.Pirtletestifiedthatotheremployeeshad   observedMr.Bowlingsproblems.     Uponthiscasegoingtotrial,AlfredBowlingfiledamotion inlimine seekingtobar \ DobbsBrothersfrompresentinganytestimonythatwas inconsistentor contradictorytoMr. L Pirtlesstatementsonbehalfofthecompany.Hefiledthismotionbaseduponfederalcaselaw 8 thatstatesthatacorporationisrequiredtoproviderepresentativesatdepositionstoofferbinding $t testimony. #  3      ׀Mr.BowlingarguedthattestimonybyotherDobbsBrothersemployeesastohislack ` ofsalesskillsorhislackofabilitytodorequiredpaperworkwasinconsistentwithMr.Pirtles L statementsthatitwashisobservationsofMr.Bowlingslackofsalesskillsthatledtohis 8 termination.Thecourtfoundsuchtestimonywasnotinconsistentorcontradictoryanddenied $ themotion.Asaresult,DobbsBrotherscalledMaureenCallahan,abusinessmanageratDobbs  Brothers,duringthetrial.Ms.CallahantestifiedthatMr.Bowlinghadtroubleprocessingallthe  paperworknecessaryforhisjob.DobbsBrothersalsocalledseveralcarsalespersonnelwho  testifiedthattheysoughttoavoidbringingpotentialcustomerstoMr.Bowlingduetohislackof  skills.Aftercompletionofthetrial,ajuryfoundforDobbsBrothers.Thisappealfollowed. p   Theissue,aspresentedbytheAppellant,isasfollows: H! 8  DidthetrialcourterrindenyingMr.Bowlingsmotion inlimine throughits  #p! findingthatDobbsBrotherscouldintroducetestimonybyotheremployeesasto $`" Mr.Bowlingslackofsalesskills?$L #    %8!$ Ї  Totheextentthattheseissuesinvolvequestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourts  rulingis denovo withapresumptionofcorrectness. See Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Accordingly,  wemaynotreversethecourtsfactualfindingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceof  theevidence. See,e.g.,Randolphv.Randolph ,937S.W.2d815,819(Tenn.1996);Tenn.R. t App.P.13(d).Withrespecttothecourtslegalconclusions,however,ourreviewis denovo `  withnopresumptionofcorrectness. See,e.g.,Bellexrel.Snyderv.Icard,Merrill,Cullis, L  Timm,FurenandGinsburg,P.A. ,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d). 8    MotioninLimine  `      Mr.Bowlingasksthiscourttoreversethetrialcourtsrulingthatdeniedhismotion in  8  limine .Mr.BowlingarguesthatRule30.02(6)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure, $  whichdetailstheprocedurefortakingthetestimonyofacorporation,shouldbeinterpretedby   thiscourtinthesamemannerasRule30(b)(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,which   detailsthesameprocedure. #  4      ׀Mr.Bowlingnotesthatunderthefederalcourtsinterpretationof   Rule30(b)(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,corporationsarerequiredtoprovide   someonewhowillprovidebindingtestimonyonbehalfofthecorporation.  #  5      ׀Mr.Bowling,inhis p motioninlimine,soughttobindDobbsBrotherstoMr.Pirtlespretrialdepositionandaffidavit \ andbar evidencecontrarytothisposition.@ #  6      ׀ H   Weassume, arguendo ,thatTennesseehasadoptedMr.Bowlingsargumentonthe  p properinterpretationofRule30.02(6)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Isthe  \ testimonyofMs.CallahanonMr.Bowlingsfailuretoprocesspaperwork,evidencecontraryto H Mr.PirtlestestimonyonbehalfofDobbsBrothers?Isthetestimonyofsalespeoplewho 4 bypassedMr.BowlingtoseeanotherF&ImanagercontrarytoDobbsBrotherstestimony?   Uponourreview,wefindthatnoneofthistestimonyiscontrarytothetestimonyDobbsBrothers   offeredatitsdepositionoraffidavit.EvenifweweretoacceptMr.Bowlingsargumentonthe  properinterpretationofRule30.02(6),thiscourtwouldstillaffirmthetrialcourtsfindingthat  thetestimonywasproperlypresentedbyDobbsBrothersanddidnotrepresentevidencecontrary  toitspretrialtestimony.`  #  7      ׀Assuch,weherebyaffirmthetrialcourtsrulinginthismatter. l  X    Conclusion       Basedupontheforegoingconclusions,weherebyaffirmthetrialcourtsruling.Costson  appealareassessedagainsttheappellant,AlfredLeeBowling,andhissurety,forwhich t executionmayissueifnecessary. ` #X XX X8 #   `     h     ___________________________________  l    `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE