Best v. Merchant

Background

On December 6, 2024, the court extended discovery only to allow Hilary Best to depose Stephanie Negron, James Merchant, and Steven Acosta. The deadline for those depositions was later extended to January 30, 2025. After Best raised concerns about the remote depositions of Negron and Merchant, the court further extended discovery to allow Best to complete the depositions of Merchant and Acosta.

Defendants then moved to require any remaining depositions to be conducted remotely and to prevent Best from continuing Merchant’s deposition. Best opposed the motion. In his opposition, Best also asked the court to reconsider its decision not to reopen document discovery. Although Best did not file a formal reconsideration motion, the court treated the request as one because Best was representing himself.

Reconsideration and Merchant’s Deposition

The court treated defendants’ request to prevent Best from continuing Merchant’s deposition as a request to reconsider the court’s January 31, 2025 decision allowing that deposition to continue. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally requiring a party to identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice.

The court concluded that defendants had identified neither controlling law nor new facts that it had overlooked. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1), which generally limits a deposition to one day, did not prevent a longer deposition because the rule allows the court to order otherwise. The court had already ordered that Merchant’s deposition could be extended. It also had already considered Best’s conduct and concluded that, under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for a self-represented plaintiff to believe that the deposition had been compromised.

The court therefore denied defendants’ motion to limit Merchant’s deposition. Best may continue the deposition on a single day, but the combined length of the January 13, 2025 deposition and the continuation may not exceed seven hours.

Remote Depositions

The court granted defendants’ request to conduct Merchant’s and Acosta’s depositions remotely. Under Rule 30(b)(4), the court may order a remote deposition and must balance the deponent’s hardship against possible prejudice to the opposing party.

The court found that Merchant’s severe disability substantially limited his ability to travel and made an in-person deposition unduly burdensome. It also found that the cost of travel from Florida to New York was sufficiently burdensome for Acosta. In contrast, Best had not shown what prejudice he would suffer from remote depositions. The court also noted that Best had not substantiated his concerns that defense counsel improperly communicated with the deponents, and defense counsel represented that they did not communicate with the defendants during the depositions.

Document Discovery

The court denied Best’s request to reconsider its decision not to reopen document discovery. Best sought documents concerning disciplinary action against Merchant during Merchant’s employment with the New York City Department of Corrections. The court had previously set December 20, 2024 as the deadline for all document discovery, while allowing later discovery only for the specified depositions.

The court found that Best had not identified overlooked controlling law, new evidence, or manifest injustice. It also found that the disciplinary records were not evidence newly uncovered during Merchant’s deposition and that Best could have requested them earlier during the lengthy discovery period. The court concluded that Best had not shown the diligence required to reopen discovery, even considering the special consideration given to self-represented litigants.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that defendants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part. The request to limit Merchant’s deposition was denied; the request for remote depositions of Merchant and Acosta was granted; and Best’s request for reconsideration of the decision not to reopen document discovery was denied. The depositions had to be completed by April 30, 2025. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Best permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.