GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-05974
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In GMO Gamecenter v. Whinstone, Judge Parker denied GMO’s request to stay CEO Masatoshi Kumagai’s deposition while Judge Cronan considered GMO’s objection.
GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc., GMO Internet, Inc., Masatoshi Kumagai, and Whinstone US, Inc.; the ruling allows Kumagai’s deposition to be scheduled within 60 days while GMO’s objection remains pending.
What happened
GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. and GMO Internet, Inc. asked the court to pause the deposition of Masatoshi Kumagai while Judge John Cronan considered their objection to an earlier order requiring the deposition. Kumagai is identified as GMO’s chief executive officer.
GMO argued that the deposition could impose a substantial, irreversible burden and that Kumagai did not have unique information needed by Whinstone US, Inc. GMO also argued that the deposition might become unnecessary or should be limited if its objection succeeded. The opinion states that Whinstone opposed the requested stay, but it does not set out Whinstone’s arguments in detail.
Judge Karine H. Parker denied the request for a stay, finding that GMO had not shown irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on its objection. The court said the deposition could be scheduled at a mutually convenient time within the next 60 days and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 447.
The detailed version
- GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. v. Whinstone US, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05974
- John Cronan
- July 22, 2025
Background
GMO Gamecenter USA, Inc. and GMO Internet, Inc., referred to together in the opinion as “GMO,” requested a stay—an order temporarily pausing a proceeding—of the deposition of Masatoshi Kumagai. The request was made while Judge John Cronan considered GMO’s objection under Rule 72 to a May 23, 2025 order denying GMO’s motion for a protective order concerning the deposition. The opinion identifies Kumagai as GMO’s chief executive officer and describes the requested deposition as an “apex” deposition, meaning a deposition of a high-ranking corporate executive.
GMO argued that proceeding with the deposition before Judge Cronan ruled on the objection could make the objection ineffective and impose a significant burden on GMO. GMO asserted that Kumagai lacked unique, relevant knowledge and that other GMO employees had already been deposed. It also argued that Kumagai’s signing of an agreement did not establish unique knowledge because he signed it in a representative capacity and did not participate in its negotiation. GMO alternatively sought limits on the deposition’s duration, subject areas, and location.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed standards concerning stays of discovery orders while an objection under Rule 72 is pending. Those standards consider factors such as the applicant’s likelihood of success, irreparable injury without a stay, harm to other parties, the public interest, and the burden and prejudice associated with the requested discovery.
The order states that GMO had not shown irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on its objection. The opinion does not state that the court resolved the underlying Rule 72 objection or decided whether Kumagai ultimately must be deposed. Instead, it addresses only whether the deposition should be paused while that objection remained pending.
Ruling
Judge Karine H. Parker denied GMO’s request for a stay of Kumagai’s deposition. The court permitted the deposition to be scheduled at any mutually convenient time within the next 60 days and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 447.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.