Mark Anthony International SRL v. Prime Hydration, LLC

Background

This case concerns competing sports hydration drinks. Mark Anthony International SRL, Mark Anthony Brands International Unlimited Company, and MAS+ Next Generation Beverage Co. sued Prime Hydration, LLC under the federal trademark statute. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, a declaration that their MAS+ BY MESSI drink did not infringe Prime’s trade dress or trademarks. Prime later asserted related counterclaims against the Mark Anthony parties and asserted a claim against Lionel Messi for contributing to alleged trademark infringement.

Prime noticed Messi’s deposition for July 28, 2025. Messi moved for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, asking the court to prevent the deposition. The case’s fact-discovery deadline was September 12, 2025.

The parties’ arguments

Messi submitted a sworn declaration stating that he lacked unique or personal knowledge about the claims and that any information he had could be obtained more easily from other witnesses. He also described the demands of his professional soccer schedule, including frequent matches, travel, training, rehabilitation, and team events. Messi argued that the timing of the deposition—before Prime had taken any other deposition—supported his position that the request was meant to pressure or harass him rather than advance the fact-finding process.

Prime argued that the heightened protection sometimes given to high-ranking executives did not apply because Messi was not a business executive overseeing a corporation. Prime also argued that any burden was outweighed by the possibility that Messi possessed unique information relevant to its claims.

Court’s analysis

Rule 26 allows a court, for good cause, to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or undue expense. The court explained that the principles behind the so-called apex-witness doctrine are broader than protection for business executives: depositions of high-profile people with unusually demanding schedules can create a heightened risk of abuse or harassment.

The court found that those concerns applied to Messi. It accepted his showing that his soccer commitments were difficult to rearrange and that a deposition would be highly disruptive. The court also found that Messi had adequately supported his statement that he lacked unique knowledge. Pablo Negre Abellé and Montserrat Trapé had attended meetings concerning MAS and would be more convenient sources for information Messi possessed. Prime had not deposed either of them and had not provided a coherent reason for seeking Messi’s deposition first.

The court concluded that a deposition at that stage was unlikely to provide information beyond what could be obtained from alternative witnesses. It found Prime’s effort to schedule the deposition at that point vexatious and improper.

Ruling

The court granted Messi’s motion for a protective order and precluded the July 28, 2025 deposition. The order was without prejudice to Prime’s right to seek court permission to schedule a deposition of Messi toward the end of fact discovery. The court stated that it would not authorize such a deposition without a concrete showing that Messi possessed unique information. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at docket 78.