Roelcke v. Shoshani

Background

Plaintiff Katharina Roelcke asked the court to reconsider its October 29, 2025 discovery order. She explained that her counsel had not timely responded to defendants’ discovery letters because the response period fell during Jewish religious observance. She also requested permission to attend her deposition by videoconference instead of appearing in person. The request stated that Roelcke is not a United States citizen, resides abroad, and would face substantial international-travel, cost, and immigration-related logistical burdens from traveling to New York.

Roelcke additionally requested permission to depose defendant Itai Shoshani before the December 5, 2025 discovery deadline. She proposed November 18, 2025, or another date convenient for the parties. She argued that both requests were narrow, would not prejudice defendants, and would help complete the factual record.

Rulings

The order states: “GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

The court denied plaintiff’s request to reconsider the October 29 order. It explained that more than four weeks had passed since the religious holidays identified by counsel, during which plaintiff did not address defendants’ letters, even though the court’s rules require a response to a discovery letter-motion within two business days. The court also found that plaintiff had not met Local Rule 6.3’s standard for reconsideration, which requires identifying matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked. Finally, the court stated that plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of hardship to justify denying defendants’ request for an in-person deposition in the district where the case was filed.

The court granted plaintiff’s request to depose Itai Shoshani. Although it described the request as highly untimely and noted an apparent pattern of disregard for discovery deadlines, it allowed the deposition because of the court’s strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits and because the summary-judgment-letter deadline had been stayed. To avoid possible prejudice to defendants, the court ordered that Shoshani’s deposition may occur only after plaintiff’s deposition is completed. The order did not grant the requested reconsideration or separately authorize plaintiff’s deposition to proceed remotely.