Horoschak v. Sirius XM Radio
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-08177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Horoschak v. Sirius XM, Judge Furman denied Sirius XM’s letter-motion challenging deposition topics, finding them relevant, particular, and proportionate.
The ruling directly affected David Horoschak, Michael Harris, Mills Staylor, and Sirius XM Radio, Inc. by allowing the challenged Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics to stand.
What happened
David Horoschak, Michael Harris, and Mills Staylor asked the court to reject Sirius XM Radio’s objections to topics in their revised organizational deposition notice. Sirius XM had objected to all but 10 topics as overly broad, vague, duplicative, or disproportionate, while the plaintiffs said they had narrowed the topics.
The dispute concerned discovery about the way Sirius XM conducted the reduction in force that resulted in the plaintiffs’ terminations, including restructuring decisions and possible comparator information. The plaintiffs asked the court to deny Sirius XM’s request to strike the revised notice and require Sirius XM to produce a witness.
Judge Jesse Furman denied Sirius XM’s letter-motion. The court found that the topics were relevant, described with sufficiently reasonable particularity, and not disproportionate to the needs of the case, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 34.
The detailed version
- Horoschak v. Sirius XM Radio · No. 1:24-cv-08177
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs served a notice for a deposition of Sirius XM Radio under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows an organization to designate one or more witnesses to testify about specified matters. Sirius XM objected to the deposition topics and asked the court to strike the notice. The plaintiffs opposed that request.
The original notice contained numerous topics. After the parties discussed Sirius XM’s objections, the plaintiffs served a revised notice on August 20, 2025. According to the plaintiffs’ letter, they amended 34 topics by limiting time periods, narrowing wording and subject matter, adding specificity, limiting some topics to certain employees or organizational groups, and citing excerpts from Sirius XM’s own discovery production.
The revised topics concerned, among other things, policies and practices, the SiriusXM Technology Organization, Human Resources, restructuring from 2022 through 2024, decisionmakers, fact contributors, annual reviews, corporate documents, and comparator information. The plaintiffs said the topics addressed the reduction in force that resulted in their terminations and Sirius XM’s assertions about company restructuring.
Parties’ Positions
The plaintiffs argued that Rule 26 permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and that Rule 30(b)(6) requires deposition topics to be described with reasonable particularity. They maintained that their revisions made the topics sufficiently specific and reasonably tailored to the core issues in the case. They also argued that comparator information was relevant to their employment-discrimination claims.
The plaintiffs asked the court to deny Sirius XM’s request to strike the revised notice and to order Sirius XM to produce an appropriate witness for the deposition. The opinion text describes Sirius XM’s objections but does not provide a separate full statement from Sirius XM beyond those objections and the request identified in the plaintiffs’ letter.
Ruling
After reviewing the parties’ letters, Judge Jesse Furman denied Sirius XM’s letter-motion. The court held that the deposition topics were relevant, described with sufficiently reasonable particularity, and not disproportionate to the needs of the case. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 34.
The order addressed the scope of discovery and the deposition notice. The text provided does not state a ruling on the underlying employment claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.