In the prosecution of complex cases, the pretrial discovery of vital information only known to the product's manufacturer is essential. Typically, the pretrial preparation and the trial presentation of products liability cases involve the analysis of the defendant corporation's internal design and testing activities, product performance in the real world, and a careful review of the corporate policies that direct or influence the decision-making process that has led to relevant product design implementation (and corporate reaction to reports of product failure). Often, counsel for the injured consumer is able to discern how a particular company processes design choices and field performance issues by reviewing intra-company documents. Typically, once these records are reviewed, pretrial depositions of designated corporate employees are obtained and they provide—for the most part—generic and scripted explanations of the company's activities based upon information memorialized in the produced records. On other occasions, corporate employees whose names appear on the produced records are deposed to obtain information well beyond what can be discerned from reading these documents. These depositions are often essential to question the defendant company about relevant topics including: "why did the company choose this design?", "did the company consider alternative designs not referenced in the records?", "what were the factors that led to one choice over another?", "how has the company pursued, encouraged and satisfied itself that corporate knowledge is shared?", "in developing the design at issue, what methodology is required to assure the release of a safe product?", "what corporate steps have been taken to react promptly to notices of product failures to avoid further injury?" Sometimes these depositions involve testimony of high-ranking company employees who are positioned to provide first-hand answers to these inquiries. And, of course, the issue of which employees within a particular corporation have the most relevant information is dependent upon the questions that arise in a particular case based on the parties' theories and defenses.

Regardless of the title or business-card designation of the deponent, if he is positioned to have relevant information that may be admissible on issues germane to a party's lawsuit, these individuals should be available to answer questions via deposition. A generic rule preventing or erecting judge-made hurdles to the deposition of a corporate employee with critical information about the motivation that drove the defendant to act or not act in a reasonable manner—merely because she has risen in the chain of command to a high level—undoubtedly thwarts the quest for the truth.