Caraway Home, Inc. v. Sensio Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:23-cv-09756
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Caraway Home v. Sensio, Judge Castel received defendants’ request for a protective order and discovery-related costs, but no ruling appears.
The discovery dispute directly affected Caraway Home, Inc., Sensio Inc. doing business as Made by Gather, Walmart, Inc., Drew Barrymore, and the other witnesses involved in the requested depositions.
What happened
Caraway Home, Inc. v. Sensio Inc. concerns defendants’ request for protection from a deposition of Drew Barrymore that Caraway scheduled for June 20, 2024. The defense letter says Barrymore was unavailable and that the parties had not agreed on a different date.
The defendants accused Caraway of uncooperative and burdensome discovery conduct, including unilaterally setting the deposition and threatening a contempt motion. They asked the court to block the noticed deposition, require cooperation in selecting another date during fact discovery, and award their attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge Castel’s ruling is not included in the provided document. The document is a defense letter requesting relief, not an order stating whether the protective-order or cost request was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Caraway Home, Inc. v. Sensio Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-09756
- P. Castel
- June 25, 2024
Document and procedural posture
The provided text is a June 20, 2024 letter from counsel for Sensio Inc., doing business as Made by Gather, Walmart, Inc., and Drew Barrymore. It asks Judge Castel for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) concerning Caraway Home, Inc.’s noticed deposition of Barrymore. The text does not include a court order or a ruling on the request.
Background
The defense letter says Caraway served substantial discovery demands, including requests for production, interrogatories, deposition notices, and subpoenas involving Sensio’s current and former employees. It also says Caraway sought discovery from Barrymore, including document requests, interrogatories, and a deposition notice.
According to the letter, Caraway unilaterally noticed Barrymore’s deposition for June 20, 2024. The defendants say they told Caraway on multiple occasions that Barrymore was unavailable that day and that they were working with her representatives to propose another date. The defendants contend that Caraway nevertheless treated the June 20 deposition as scheduled, sent building-security credentials, and threatened to seek contempt sanctions if Barrymore did not appear.
Requested relief
The defendants asked the court to enter a protective order concerning the June 20 deposition, require Caraway to cooperate under Local Rule 26.4(a) in selecting a reasonable and mutually agreeable date during the fact-discovery period, and award the defendants reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion. The letter relies on Rules 26(c) and 37(a)(5) and cites cases concerning cooperation in scheduling depositions and expenses related to protective-order motions.
Disposition
Judge Castel’s disposition is not stated in the provided text. The document records the defendants’ requests and arguments only; it does not say that the protective-order request or the request for fees and costs was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.