In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-10667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In re Laundress Litigation: Judge Furman denied proposed deposition limits and exclusion of A.S.’s parents, while imposing conduct restrictions.
Plaintiffs Olga Macha and Lauris Macs, their fourteen-year-old daughter A.S., and the defendant in the related litigation. The order governs A.S.’s deposition, the parents’ attendance and conduct, and the handling of deposition disputes.
What happened
In In re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation, the parties asked the court to limit the defendant’s deposition of A.S., a fourteen-year-old daughter of plaintiffs Olga Macha and Lauris Macs.
The plaintiffs asked to limit the deposition to one hour and to questions about A.S.’s current condition. The defendant asked to exclude Macha and Macs from attending. The court denied both sides’ requests, while telling the defendant to proceed cautiously and sensitively.
Judge Furman ordered Macha and Macs to sit outside A.S.’s direct line of vision and not communicate with her except during breaks. He said the court could revisit excluding them and warned that violations could lead to sanctions; a magistrate judge was assigned to handle disputes arising during the deposition.
The detailed version
- In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation · No. 1:22-cv-10667
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 5, 2025
Background The parties filed cross-motions for protective orders concerning the defendant’s upcoming deposition of A.S., the fourteen-year-old daughter of plaintiffs Olga Macha and Lauris Macs. The opinion concerns the related case Macha v. The Laundress, LLC, No. 24-CV-2108 (JMF).
Requests and Rulings The plaintiffs asked the court to limit the deposition to one hour and to questions about A.S.’s “current condition.” The court denied those requests. The court also denied the defendant’s request to exclude Macha and Macs from attending the deposition. The court said the defendant’s concerns about undue influence were not unfounded, but found no solid basis on the current record to exclude the two plaintiffs, particularly because A.S. is their minor daughter.
Deposition Conditions The court ordered Macha and Macs to sit outside A.S.’s direct line of vision, ideally behind her, and not communicate with A.S. except during deposition breaks. The court stated that it could revisit the request to exclude them if they failed to follow those restrictions or if another issue arose during the deposition. The defendant was admonished to proceed cautiously and sensitively because of A.S.’s age and condition.
Further Proceedings and Disposition Because Judge Furman would be unavailable on the deposition date, March 10, 2025, the court stated that it would refer the matter by separate order to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger to decide disputes arising during the deposition. The court warned that failure to follow the order could result in sanctions and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the docket entries for the two motions. The opinion therefore resolved discovery-related protective-order requests and set conditions for the deposition; it did not decide the underlying product-liability claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.