In MAG Aerospace Industries, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., No. CV-13-6089 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014), a federal Magistrate Judge imposed sanctions on defendant and its counsel in connection with what the court described as a “train wreck of a deposition” that “was essentially a filibuster of an entire day of ‘testimony.’” The court found that the witness had been highly evasive and unwilling to simply answer a question, claiming not to understand the meaning of such common terms as “what,” “which,” “does,” “have,” “use,” and “educational background.” Rather than testify to what he did know, the witness kept telling plaintiff’s counsel to ask someone who might know more. The court further found that counsel for the witness “soon hopped on the bandwagon and began interposing inappropriate objections [to] perfectly clear (albeit broad) questions,” and wasted time by trying to engage plaintiff’s counsel in banter. Both the witness and his counsel seemed to confuse a broad question with one that need not be answered. Consequently, the court ordered defendant to reimburse plaintiff’s attorney’s fees incurred during the deposition and in preparation of the motion. The court also ordered defendant to produce a 30(b)(6) witness who is prepared to testify to the issues to which the witness was suppose to testify, and ordered that during that deposition, defense counsel was precluded from making any objection other than for privilege, assumption of disputed facts, or mischaracterization of the record.