Under Rule 614, which statement about constructive exclusion is correct?

• A. A party who is a natural person may not be constructively excluded
• B. An officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after designation as representative, may be constructively excluded
• C. A person omitted from the list may be constructively excluded
• D. A person who is a natural person may be constructively excluded

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is that Rule 614 allows the court to exclude witnesses from hearing other witnesses’ testimony, and it recognizes a special situation for corporate parties. When a party is not a natural person (for example, a corporation) and it designates an officer or employee as its representative to testify, that designated representative may be constructively excluded. In other words, the court can keep that representative out of the room so they don’t hear other witnesses’ testimony and thereby avoid influencing or tainting their own testimony.

This is the best answer because it reflects the specific provision that addresses a corporate party’s designated representative and the possibility of constructive exclusion. The other statements misstate who can be constructively excluded or extend the concept beyond its appropriate scope (for natural persons, or someone not properly designated as a representative, or simply omitting someone from a list).