GEM Yield Bahamas Limited v. Mullen Technologies, Inc.

Background

The court reviewed Respondents’ letter motion under Local Rule 37.2 seeking a conference and asking to quash two deposition notices and two subpoenas. The notices sought depositions of corporate representatives for Mullen Automotive, Inc. (MAI) and Mullen Technologies, Inc. (MTI). The subpoenas sought depositions of David Michery, identified as MAI’s chief executive officer, president, and chairman and MTI’s chairman, and Jonathan New, identified as MAI’s chief financial officer.

The discovery was requested after the court entered a February 13, 2025 final judgment confirming arbitration awards in Petitioners’ favor and ordering Respondents to pay the awarded amounts, plus interest, by May 7, 2025. The opinion states that Petitioners sought post-judgment discovery concerning Respondents’ assets and financial obligations.

Arguments and analysis

Respondents argued that the corporate depositions were improperly noticed for New York rather than the companies’ principal places of business—Delaware or California for MAI and California for MTI. The court recognized a rebuttable presumption that a corporate deposition occurs where the corporation has its principal place of business, and held that there was no reason to depart from that presumption because Petitioners had indicated a willingness to conduct the depositions in California.

Respondents also argued that the deposition notices did not describe the examination topics with reasonable particularity, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The court found that the topics were substantively and temporally relevant to post-judgment discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. It noted that topics 1, 2, 4, and 8 had necessary time limits and that Petitioners represented that topics 3, 5, 6, and 7 covered September 1, 2021, through the present. The court also found no basis to conclude that Petitioners had failed to confer in good faith about the topics.

Respondents further argued that the subpoenas were invalid because Petitioners had not tendered the required witness fees. The court accepted Petitioners’ representation that fees had been tendered for Michery and New. It also rejected Respondents’ argument that the subpoenas were impermissibly duplicative, concluding that the subpoenas sought relevant testimony concerning enforcement of the judgment, including possible information about Respondents’ assets.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Respondents’ application in part and denied it in part. The court ordered the depositions of MAI’s and MTI’s corporate representatives to take place in California on the noticed dates, subject to any agreement to change those dates. It found the deposition topics proper, accepted the representation that witness fees had been tendered, and declined to quash the subpoenas to Michery and New. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer about alternative dates proposed by Respondents and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 179.