Harman Becker Automotive Systems Manufacturing KFT v. Tasus Texas Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-06488
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Harman Becker Automotive Systems Manufacturing KFT v. TASUS Texas Corporation, Judge Abrams directed the discovery dispute to Magistrate Judge Willis.
The ruling affects Harman Becker Automotive Systems Manufacturing KFT, Harman Becker Automotive Systems, Inc., and TASUS Texas Corporation by directing their pretrial discovery dispute to Magistrate Judge Willis.
What happened
In Harman Becker Automotive Systems Manufacturing KFT and Harman Becker Automotive Systems, Inc. v. TASUS Texas Corporation, Harman asked the court to require TASUS to produce a corporate representative for a deposition about the sale of its Georgetown facility and related issues. Harman alleged that TASUS breached a contract and caused more than $7 million in damages.
Harman said TASUS refused to produce a corporate representative, arguing that other witnesses had already testified or that some topics were irrelevant. Harman argued that the proposed deposition topics were relevant and asked the court to order the deposition and reimbursement of its attorneys’ fees for the letter-motion.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that this and all other pretrial disputes be raised with Magistrate Judge Willis. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied Harman’s request to compel the deposition or its request for fees.
The detailed version
- Harman Becker Automotive Systems Manufacturing KFT v. Tasus Texas Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-06488
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 31, 2025
Background
Harman submitted a letter-motion asking for a conference about its request to compel TASUS to present a corporate representative for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The letter states that Harman claims TASUS breached the parties’ Master Purchase Agreement by selling its Georgetown, Texas manufacturing facility while production obligations to Harman were continuing. Harman alleged damages exceeding $7 million.
Harman served a deposition notice covering 10 topics. The topics included TASUS’s assessment of Harman’s damages, the decision to sell the Georgetown facility, communications involving Koichi O’Hara, the amount paid for the facility, profit margins, and TASUS’s post-sale withholding of Harman’s tooling. Harman said the parties met and conferred but could not resolve the dispute.
Parties’ Positions
Harman argued that TASUS could not refuse to designate a corporate representative merely because other witnesses had testified or because TASUS considered some topics irrelevant. Harman said four TASUS witnesses had already been deposed but had often said they did not know or remember answers to questions within the noticed topics. Harman relied on Rule 30(b)(6), which requires an organization to designate one or more people to testify about matters described with reasonable particularity, and argued that the corporate representative should provide complete and knowledgeable answers on TASUS’s behalf.
Harman requested an order requiring TASUS to produce a corporate representative and an order requiring TASUS to reimburse Harman for attorneys’ fees related to the letter-motion. The opinion text provided does not include a response from TASUS beyond the objections described in Harman’s letter.
Court’s Action
The court stated that the case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Willis for general pretrial matters. The court ordered that this dispute, along with all other pretrial disputes, be raised with Judge Willis. The text does not state that Judge Abrams granted or denied the request to compel the deposition, ruled on the requested fees, or decided the parties’ underlying contract dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.