Court Sanctions Attorney For “Conduct Intended To Harass” And “Prevent Defendants To Obtain Discovery” During Five Fact Depositions

Posted: November 26, 2025 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt / Categories Sanctions, Deposition

Court Sanctions Attorney For “Conduct Intended To Harass” And “Prevent Defendants To Obtain Discovery” During Five Fact Depositions

On October 3, 2025, Justice Melissa A. Crane granted fee-shifting sanctions after a plaintiff’s attorney engaged in behavior during depositions that included repeated speaking objections and potential coaching of witnesses. In Guggenheim Securities, LLC, v. Falcon’s Beyond Global, LLC et al., Index No. 651585/2024, defendants’ counsel had asked the plaintiff’s counsel to stop making speaking objections, prompting the parties to speak to the Court on the phone. The Court instructed plaintiff’s counsel to stop; however, plaintiff’s counsel continued with speaking objections. After reviewing several egregious examples from the transcripts where counsel’s objections appeared to coach the witnesses, the Court granted defendants’ motion for sanctions. The Court explained:

The court has reviewed plaintiff's counsel's overall conduct at the five EBTs and finds that it repeatedly exceeded the permitted boundaries in sections 221.1, 221.2, 221.3, and CPLR 3115 (b), (c), and (d). Plaintiffs arguments in opposition to the motion are unavailing. Thus, the court finds that plaintiffs counsel's conduct was intended to at least harass defendants' attorneys, if not to also prevent defendants to obtain discovery through these depositions. Despite plaintiffs counsel's repeated frivolous conduct, defendants were able to complete these EBTs. Moreover, defendants do not adequately identify missing answers or areas for further questioning. Thus, the court denies the part of defendants' motion that seeks to take continued/supplemental depositions. Plaintiffs cross motion for sanctions is denied. This cross motion is clearly a tit-for-tat exercise that should not have been filed. This in itself is sanctionable, as well.

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan frequently participate in depositions and examinations before trial. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.