GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc.

Nature of the filing

The provided text is a letter request by Plaintiffs GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. and GMO Internet, Inc., collectively called GMO. GMO asks the court to stay, meaning temporarily pause, the deposition of Masatoshi Kumagai while Judge Cronan considers GMO’s objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 to a May 23, 2025 order denying GMO’s motion for a protective order.

The text states that the May 23 order allowed an “apex deposition” of Kumagai, whom it identifies as GMO’s chief executive officer. An apex deposition is a deposition of a high-ranking corporate executive. GMO filed its Rule 72 objection on June 6, 2025. At a June 16 conference, GMO requested a stay and says the court instructed it to submit a stay request within 30 days.

GMO’s arguments

GMO argues that proceeding with the deposition before Judge Cronan rules on the objection would make the objection effectively moot. It says the deposition would create a substantial and irreversible burden through preparation, travel, deposition time, and legal expenses. GMO states that Whinstone most recently sought a 14-hour deposition in New York, which could prevent Kumagai from leading GMO for days or as much as a week.

GMO also argues that it is likely to succeed on its objection because Kumagai lacks unique, relevant knowledge. According to the letter, other GMO employees who have already been deposed possess the relevant information, and Kumagai signed the Texas Agreement in a representative capacity without participating in its negotiation. GMO alternatively asks that any deposition be limited to two hours and specified topics and take place at the U.S. Consulate in Tokyo.

The letter further alleges that Whinstone changed its position about holding the deposition in Japan after GMO provided dates when the Tokyo consulate was available. GMO characterizes Whinstone’s continued request for the deposition in New York as harassment. These are GMO’s arguments in the letter, not findings by the court in the provided text.

GMO argues that a stay would not prejudice Whinstone because Whinstone could take the deposition if the objection were denied. GMO points to the December 11, 2025 deadline for summary-judgment motions and argues that there would be enough time to obtain a ruling and use any deposition testimony. GMO also states that Whinstone’s stated reasons for seeking the deposition concern Kumagai’s motives and intent regarding the Texas Agreement and GMO’s mining strategy, rather than expert reports.

Finally, GMO argues that a stay would serve the public interest by preserving its ability to challenge the deposition under Rule 72 and by limiting burdensome discovery under the rules governing discovery.

Disposition

The provided text does not contain a ruling on GMO’s request for a stay. It does not state that the request was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. The text identifies Judge Cronan as the judge considering GMO’s underlying Rule 72 objection, while the document is addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker. Accordingly, the disposition of the stay request and the Rule 72 objection cannot be determined from the provided text.