GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-05974
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
GMO Gamecenter v. Whinstone: Judge Parker partly denied and partly granted Whinstone’s request to narrow seven deposition topics.
GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc., GMO Internet, Inc., and Whinstone US, Inc. are affected by the permitted and narrowed deposition topics. The order principally governs what Whinstone’s designated corporate witnesses may be required to address in discovery.
What happened
In GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Corporation, the parties disputed seven subjects for a deposition of Whinstone’s corporate witness under the federal deposition rule for organizations. The subjects included mining-machine removal, repairs, operation, instructions, replacement miners, storage, and bitcoin mining in Building A.
Whinstone asked the court to block these subjects through a protective order, arguing that some were irrelevant, insufficiently specific, argumentative, or concerned information held only by Riot. The court found that the topics were relevant and appropriately limited for the case, although some needed clearer or more neutral wording.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Whinstone’s motion in part and granted it in part by revising or limiting the seven topics. The witness could be questioned on all seven, but several questions were narrowed to Whinstone’s knowledge, responsibilities, communications, or actions; the witness did not need to testify about Riot’s knowledge.
The detailed version
- GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05974
- John Cronan
- Dec. 13, 2024
Background
Whinstone US, Inc. moved for a protective order, which is a court order limiting discovery to prevent undue burden or other specified harm. The motion challenged topics in GMO’s notice for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows a party to require an organization to identify a witness prepared to testify about specified subjects.
The parties agreed that Whinstone would provide two witnesses. The first witness, David Schatz, was scheduled to testify about 14 topics, including seven disputed topics addressed in this order. A second witness, Jeff McGonegal, was expected to testify about remaining topics in January 2025, subject to later court rulings.
Disputed Topics
The seven topics concerned:
- Whinstone’s removal or replacement of GMO’s mining machines at the Texas Data Center, including events in March or April 2022 (Topic 10); - repair of GMO’s machines, including repairs by Whinstone or HM Tech (Topic 27); - the operation, performance, and profitability of GMO’s machines and Whinstone’s possible responsibilities concerning them (Topic 28); - instructions or advice about how GMO should operate its machines, including different operating modes (Topic 29); - installation of Whinstone’s miners or other miners in Building A or in place of GMO’s miners (Topic 31); - placement or storage of GMO’s miners after removal from operation, including related requests and communications (Topic 32); and - Whinstone’s and Riot’s bitcoin mining in Building A (Topic 40).
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it has broad discretion to manage discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the party seeking a protective order must show good cause, including a clearly defined, specific, and serious injury that disclosure would cause. The court also stated that discovery topics must seek information relevant to the claims and defenses, be proportional to the needs of the case, and be described with reasonable particularity—that is, with enough specificity and discernible boundaries to identify the subject of the testimony.
Whinstone objected based on relevance, lack of reasonable particularity, argumentative wording, and the claimed absence of information about Riot. After reviewing the parties’ submissions and communications, the court found that the topics were relevant and proportional and generally gave Whinstone enough notice of the subjects on which its witness should prepare. The court nevertheless revised or limited several topics.
Ruling
The court denied in part and granted in part Whinstone’s motion for a protective order as to Topics 10, 27–29, 31–32, and 40.
- Topic 10 remained available as proposed. - Topic 27 was limited to Whinstone’s knowledge of repairs to GMO’s machines, including repairs by Whinstone or HM Tech. - Topic 28 was limited to Whinstone’s knowledge of the operation, performance, and profitability of GMO’s machines and Whinstone’s responsibilities, if any, concerning those matters. - Topic 29 was revised to address whether Whinstone instructed or advised GMO about operating its machines and, if so, the instruction or advice and the people involved. - Topic 31 was limited to installation of Whinstone’s miners or miners belonging to others in place of GMO’s miners. - Topic 32 was revised to address where GMO’s miners were placed or stored at the Texas facility, including moves within the facility, the purpose of their placement, and related communications. - Topic 40 remained available, but the witness did not need to testify about Riot’s knowledge. Whinstone could be questioned about its own knowledge of Riot’s mining at Whinstone’s facility.
The order stated that the court would address the remaining disputed deposition topics in a later order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.