Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd.

Background

Cross-Petitioner Levona Holdings Ltd. moved to compel depositions of Intervenors Apargo Limited, Fentalon Limited, and Desimusco Trading Limited, along with their principals, Vassilis Kertsikoff, Vasilis Hadjieleftheriadis, and Laskarina Karastamati. The parties agreed to combine the entity depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) with the individual depositions under Rule 30(b)(1), resulting in three depositions. Levona noticed the depositions to occur at its counsel’s offices in New York. The intervenors instead argued that all depositions should occur remotely from Greece. Eletson Holdings Inc. supported Levona’s motion.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that district courts have broad authority to manage discovery, including the location of depositions. The usual rule is that the party noticing a deposition generally may select its location. The court also considered Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4), which allows a court to order a deposition by telephone or another remote method, and Local Civil Rule 30.2, which presumptively favors remote depositions when a party seeks them.

The court nevertheless found that Levona had given compelling reasons for in-person depositions in New York, while the intervenors had not shown good cause for remote depositions from Greece. The witnesses were described as key witnesses because they were principals and representatives of entities purportedly designated by Eletson Gas to receive Levona’s shares. The court concluded that a remote video deposition was not an adequate substitute here for face-to-face examination and could create logistical and supervision problems.

The court also noted that the witnesses had attended or testified in person at a New York arbitration and New York bankruptcy proceedings. The intervenors had voluntarily participated in the New York case to defend an arbitration award, and the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in New York. The court further considered that the lead lawyers were located in New York, that future deposition disputes were likely, and that Levona’s witnesses, who reside in Canada, had agreed to travel to New York. The court noted that permission from Greece’s central authority might be required for voluntary depositions of Greek and third-country nationals, and that the intervenors had not shown that permission had been sought or could readily be obtained.

Disposition

The court granted Levona’s motion to compel. It ordered the intervenors and the identified principals to appear for their depositions at the noticed locations in New York. The clerk was directed to close Docket Number 501.