The Court therefore directs Kalitenko P.C. to amend its previous responses to plaintiffs' interrogatories to provide substantive answers. See, e.g., Apache Corp. v. McKeen, 529 F.Supp. 459, 463 (W.D.N.Y. 1982) (requiring corporate entity to appoint agent to respond to plaintiffs' interrogatories without invoking Fifth Amendment privilege); see also SEC v. CKB168 Holdings, Ltd., No. 13-CV-5584 (RRM), 2014 WL 12835241, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014) (in Rule 30(b)(6) deposition context, this magistrate judge held that the corporate defendant “must produce a representative who will not invoke the Fifth Amendment, even if that necessitates retaining an agent expressly for the purpose of testifying” (collecting cases))
Because that testimony is auxiliarly to the production, it is also unprivileged. Apache Corp. v. McKeen, 529 F. Supp. 459, 462 (W.D.N.Y. 1982). However, "once a corporate agent has fulfilled his duty to testify for the purpose of identifying material produced, he may exercise his personal privilege as to further questions relating to the records."