In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-10667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Re Laundress v. The Laundress, LLC: Plaintiffs ask Judge Furman to restrict a minor’s deposition, but the text shows no clear ruling.
A.S., the minor plaintiff whose deposition is at issue; her parents, Olga Macha and Lauris Macs; and The Laundress, LLC, which seeks the deposition.
What happened
In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation concerns a request by A.S., a minor, and her parents, Olga Macha and Lauris Macs, for limits on A.S.’s deposition in their product-liability case against The Laundress, LLC. The filing says A.S. was injured after exposure to allegedly contaminated products and has experienced physical and mental harms.
The plaintiffs ask the court to limit the deposition to one hour, allow A.S.’s parents to attend, and restrict questions to her present condition, current complaints, and capabilities. They say A.S. has a history of serious mental-health problems and that much of the information sought is available from her records and other witnesses.
The letter is addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman and ends with “SO ORDERED,” but the provided text does not clearly state whether he granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request. The filing also refers inconsistently to a deposition date of March 10 and May 10, 2025.
The detailed version
- In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation · No. 1:22-cv-10667
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 27, 2025
Nature of the Filing
The provided document is a letter motion filed by counsel for plaintiffs A.S., a minor, and her parents, Olga Macha and Lauris Macs. The plaintiffs seek a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) concerning The Laundress, LLC’s planned deposition of A.S. The text does not provide a separate judicial opinion explaining the court’s ruling.
Background
According to the plaintiffs’ filing, the case arises from injuries A.S. allegedly suffered after exposure to The Laundress, LLC’s products, which the filing describes as contaminated with lethal bacteria. The filing states that A.S. has experienced physical and mental harms, including suicidal attempts, mood swings, anxiety, and panic attacks. It also states that she was diagnosed with anxiety and depression, has taken antidepressant medication since the alleged injuries, and was previously subjected to an emergency psychiatric intervention described in the filing as being “Baker-acted.”
Requested Protective-Order Restrictions
The plaintiffs ask the court to order three restrictions on A.S.’s deposition:
- Limit the deposition to one hour.
- Permit A.S.’s parents to be present.
- Limit the deposition’s subject matter to A.S.’s present condition, current complaints, and capabilities.
The plaintiffs state that they conferred with defense counsel but could not resolve the dispute. They acknowledge that The Laundress, LLC is entitled to hear A.S.’s account of her daily activities, present complaints, and awareness of her condition, but argue that an unrestricted deposition could cause her unnecessary trauma.
Arguments Concerning Discovery
The plaintiffs argue that the information sought from A.S. is available from other sources. They identify A.S.’s school, medical, and psychiatric records; the deposition of her mother; a noticed deposition of her stepfather; planned depositions of four treating physicians and her maternal grandmother; and subpoenas directed to records from twenty-four medical providers.
The filing cites Rule 26(c)(1), which allows a court, for good cause, to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. It also cites decisions involving limits or protections for depositions of minors.
Disposition Shown in the Provided Text
The document ends with the words “SO ORDERED” and a date that appears to be intended as February 27, 2025, but it does not clearly state whether the protective-order request was granted, denied, or granted or denied in part. The text also contains inconsistent references to the scheduled deposition date, identifying it in different places as March 10 and May 10, 2025. Because no clear disposition is shown, the court’s action cannot be stated more specifically from the provided text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.