The plaintiff asserted various claims against defendant, including claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. In this decision, Magistrate Judge Thynge denied plaintiff’s motion to compel the corporate defendant to produce for deposition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 current employees of defendant’s whollyowned overseas subsidiaries. By its motion, plaintiff sought to avoid having to pursue such depositions under the procedures of the Hague Convention. Although plaintiff argued that the foreign employees were under the “control” of defendant, the court concluded: “there is no textual basis in the federal rules for [plaintiff’s] argument that the control test is applicable to the court’s consideration regarding its request to depose individual witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30.” 271 F.R.D. at 90 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the court denied plaintiff’s motion related to Rule 30 depositions of the defendant’s foreign subsidiary employees. On the other hand, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to produce a witness under Rule 30(b)(6) prepared to testify not only regarding defendant’s own corporate knowledge, but also concerning the knowledge of defendant’s wholly-owned foreign subsidiary. The court ruled that in responding to a Rule 30(b)(6) notice a corporation “must produce a witness prepared to testify with the knowledge of the subsidiaries and affiliates if the subsidiaries and affiliates are within its control.” Id. at 93 (quotation omitted). In this regard, according to the court, a Rule 30(b)(6) request is similar to Rule 33 interrogatories or Rule 34 production requests. In response to discovery propounded under these three rules, a corporate party must provide all information and documents possessed by its wholly-owned subsidiary. Moreover, the court found that there were a number of facts in this case that confirmed defendant’s “ability to exert legal control over discoverable information held by” its subsidiary. Id. at 96. Such facts included that defendant incorporated its subsidiary’s financial results in joint financial disclosures submitted to the SEC, defendant’s counsel was involved in the subsidiary’s responses to document requests, and defendant was involved in the matters about which plaintiff seeks discovery from the subsidiary.