Kintetsu World Express, Inc. v. Dialectic Distribution LLC
- Willis
- 1:21-cv-09579
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kintetsu World Express v. Dialectic Distribution, Judge Willis granted Dkt. 98 in part and denied it in part, including sealing without prejudice.
Kintetsu World Express (U.S.A.), Inc. must participate in an additional deposition concerning the referenced documents and address the sealing request under the applicable standard if it renews that request. Dialectic Distribution LLC must participate in the additional deposition and provide the scheduled deposition date through the joint status letter.
What happened
In Kintetsu World Express (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Dialectic Distribution LLC, Kintetsu told the court that Dialectic’s lawyer had instructed a deposition witness not to answer questions about certain documents. Kintetsu asked for another deposition limited to those documents and asked to seal them under the parties’ protective order.
The issue remained unresolved after several court orders and joint letters. Dialectic said it did not know the issue was still pending and asked for an opportunity to respond, but it did not file the response the court allowed and ordered.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis granted the request for another deposition as unopposed, but denied the request to seal the documents without prejudice because Kintetsu relied only on the protective order and did not address the required sealing standard. The court also ordered a joint status letter and directed the Clerk to close Dkt. Nos. 98 and 112.
The detailed version
- Kintetsu World Express, Inc. v. Dialectic Distribution LLC · No. 1:21-cv-09579
- Willis
- Aug. 11, 2025
Background
On November 11, 2024, Kintetsu World Express (U.S.A.), Inc. filed a letter stating that Dialectic Distribution LLC’s counsel had instructed a deposition witness not to answer questions about specific documents. Kintetsu requested an order requiring a further deposition limited to those documents. It also requested that the documents be sealed based on the parties’ protective order. Dialectic did not file a response at that time.
Later proceedings
The court later directed the parties to report whether the issue had been resolved. In a March 10, 2025 joint letter, Kintetsu said it remained outstanding. Dialectic responded that it was unaware the issue remained pending because Kintetsu had not raised it at a February 3 conference. Dialectic requested permission to oppose the request if the court considered it.
On April 10, 2025, the court directed the parties to meet and confer and stated that Dialectic could file a three-page response if the issue remained unresolved. After an extension, the parties reported on April 22, 2025, that the issue was still unresolved. Dialectic did not file the response that it had requested and that the court had authorized.
Rulings
The court stated that Dkt. No. 98 was granted in part and denied in part. It granted Kintetsu’s request for an additional deposition concerning the referenced documents as unopposed. The parties were ordered to file a joint status letter by August 25, 2025, stating the date of the scheduled deposition.
The court denied Kintetsu’s sealing request without prejudice. It found that Kintetsu relied solely on the parties’ protective order and did not cite the applicable standard for sealing documents in the Southern District of New York. The court stated that broad references to a protective order were insufficient to justify sealing. The August 25 joint letter was also required to propose a new expert-discovery schedule. The Clerk of Court was requested to close Dkt. Nos. 98 and 112.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.