Maas v. Verizon New York, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-04147
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Maas v. Verizon New York, Inc., Judge Broderick vacated a deposition order and required the parties to confer and report on the dispute.
Daren Maas, Verizon New York, Inc., the four non-party witnesses, and the witnesses’ counsel were affected by the vacated deposition-location order and the requirement to confer and report on the dispute.
What happened
In Maas v. Verizon New York, Inc., the court had ordered Maas to depose four non-party witnesses in Nassau County or remotely. Maas asked the court to reconsider that order.
Maas said the witnesses’ lawyers had not fully explained his reasons for wanting to conduct the depositions in person in Manhattan. The witnesses’ lawyers responded in a letter the same day.
Judge Broderick found that the new information justified reconsideration and vacated the earlier order. He required the parties to try to resolve the dispute in good faith and submit a joint status letter by April 3, 2025; if the dispute remained unresolved, he would schedule an in-person conference.
The detailed version
- Maas v. Verizon New York, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04147
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 28, 2025
Background
On March 27, 2025, the court ordered Daren Maas to depose four non-party witnesses in Nassau County or virtually. Maas sought reconsideration later that day, stating that counsel for the non-party witnesses had not fully presented Maas’s reasons for requesting in-person depositions in Manhattan. Counsel for the witnesses responded on March 28, 2025.
Court’s Action
The court determined that the new information in the parties’ letters warranted reconsideration of its earlier order. It therefore vacated the March 27 order. Vacating the order removed that earlier deposition-location directive; the opinion did not decide the final location of the depositions.
Next Steps and Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties to meet and confer in an effort to resolve the dispute in good faith under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). He also ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by April 3, 2025, describing the dispute’s status. If the letter showed that the issue remained unresolved, the judge would schedule an in-person conference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.