You searched for: "Deposition"
September 1, 2023 Court Compels Deposition of Individual with Unique Personal Knowledge of Critical Factual Issues
On July 3, 2023, Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Apotex Corp. v. Hospira Healthcare India Private Ltd., 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3340, granting defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiff to produce a specific individual for a deposition. The Court had previously denied a motion seeking the same relief without prejudice as premature. The Court now determined that the defendants had sufficiently shown that the individual possessed unique personal knowledge that other deponents and discovery had not been able to provide, explaining: Read More
June 5, 2023 Late Response to Discovery Demands Does Not Waive Objections to Palpably Improper Demands
On May 22, 2023, Jennifer G. Schecter of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in LI v. Satsuma USA LLC, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2530. Ruling on multiple discovery-related motions, the Court ruled in relevant part that, while the plaintiff’s response to defendants’ post-deposition demands was untimely, a late response to discovery demands does not result in waiver of objections to palpably improper demands. Read More
May 5, 2023 Court Denies Motion to Depose Individual As Corporate Representative
In an Opinion, dated April 3, 2023, in Phillips Auctioneers LLC v. Grosso, Index No. 651782/2020, Justice Andrea Masley denied defendant’s motion to depose Nicola Del Roscio as the corporate representative of the Cy Twombly Foundation. The case arose out of a consignment contract between the plaintiff auction house and consignor defendant. The contract provided that plaintiff could withdraw the work at issue if there “is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, authorship or attribution. . .” Plaintiff brought the action to recover an advance, withdrawal fee, and out-of-pocket expenses for the withdrawal of an alleged false artwork by Cy Twombly. Grosso counterclaimed. Grosso deposed David Baum, the Secretary and General Counsel of the Foundation, but argued that he was entitled to depose Del Roscio as well. Grosso claimed that plaintiff’s decision to withdraw the work at issue was principally informed by information from the Foundation and thus Del Roscio’s deposition was necessary. The Court rejected Grosso’s argument, explaining: Read More