Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 2025

Sound Around, Inc. v. Friedman

Judge
Denise Cote
Docket
1:24-cv-01986
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Sound Around v. Friedman, Judge Parker set deposition dates and rules for combining individual and corporate testimony.

Who this affects

Sound Around, Inc.; Moises Friedman; Shulim Ilowitz; ML Imports, Inc.; MDF Marketing, Inc.; World Group Import, LLC; Levi Rottenberg; Executive Services; and Executive Laundry, LLC.

What happened

Sound Around, Inc. v. Friedman concerns the parties’ failure to fully follow an earlier order setting dates for several depositions. The court had already scheduled Moises Friedman’s and Shulim Ilowitz’s individual depositions for April 8 and 9, 2025.

The court ordered corporate witnesses for ML Imports, Inc., MDF Marketing, Inc., and World Group Import, LLC, to testify on April 10 and 11. It also ordered Levi Rottenberg’s combined individual and corporate deposition to occur on March 26, while allowing requests for additional time if justified. Sound Around must make its corporate representative available for a deposition by May 6.

Judge Katharine H. Parker also adjourned the April 9 case-management conference and required a joint status letter by April 11. The order addressed deposition scheduling and limits, not the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sound Around, Inc. v. Friedman · No. 1:24-cv-01986
Judge
Denise Cote
Date
Mar. 4, 2025

Background

The court had previously ordered the parties to set dates for individual fact depositions of three people and depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) of three corporate defendants associated with Moises Friedman and Shulim Ilowitz. A Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is testimony given by a person designated to speak for a company about information known or reasonably available to that company.

The parties reported that they had not fully complied with the earlier order. They had scheduled Ilowitz’s and Friedman’s individual depositions for April 8 and 9, 2025. They had not agreed on dates for Levi Rottenberg, identified as the owner of Executive Services and Executive Laundry, LLC, or for the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of ML Imports, Inc., MDF Marketing, Inc., and World Group Import, LLC.

Court’s Analysis

The defendants argued that the same people who would testify individually could also testify for the affiliated companies, and that the depositions should therefore occur at the same time with a seven-hour limit. The court explained that an individual deposition and a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition are different: an individual witness testifies based on personal knowledge, while a corporate representative testifies for the entity and must provide information reasonably available to it. The court also noted that parties sometimes combine the depositions when the individual’s testimony will be binding on the company, but additional time may be needed.

The court found that Friedman and Ilowitz had not agreed that their testimony would bind the affiliated companies. The defendants also had not explained why the corporate deposition topics would duplicate the questions asked in the individual depositions or why seven hours would be enough. The Executive defendants likewise had not stated that Rottenberg would testify both individually and for those entities or explained why seven hours would suffice.

Order

The court ordered the defendants to designate corporate witnesses for ML Imports, Inc., MDF Marketing, Inc., and World Group Import, LLC, to testify on April 10 and 11, 2025. Because the companies are closely held and the testimony may overlap, the court assumed that Friedman and Ilowitz would agree that their individual testimony would bind the affiliated companies. The court limited the three corporate depositions to a total of no more than 14 hours, separate from the seven hours allotted for each individual deposition, while allowing Sound Around to seek additional time if needed and supported by efficient use of the deposition time.

The court also assumed that Rottenberg would agree that his answers would bind Executive Services and Executive Laundry, LLC. It ordered his combined individual and Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to occur on March 26, 2025, in one day, subject to additional time upon a proper showing. Sound Around must make its corporate representative available for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on or before May 6, 2025, so that the defendants have at least one week to prepare for the preliminary-injunction hearing scheduled for May 13. The court adjourned the April 9 case-management conference and required the parties to submit a joint status letter by April 11.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.