Netrebko v. Metropolitan Opera Association
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-06857
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Anna Netrebko v. Metropolitan Opera, Judge Wang denied without prejudice Netrebko’s request to compel Gillian Brierley’s deposition until after key defendant depositions.
Anna Netrebko’s request to depose Gillian Brierley was postponed; the Metropolitan Opera Association and the other defendants were not required to address or produce Brierley for that deposition at this stage.
What happened
In Anna Netrebko v. Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc. et al., Anna Netrebko asked the court to require the Metropolitan Opera Association employee Gillian Brierley to testify in a deposition. Netrebko said Brierley’s communications about Netrebko’s termination could show the defendants’ motives.
The court agreed with the defendants that the request should wait until after the deposition of defendant Peter Gelb and the remaining deposition of the Metropolitan Opera Association. The court found that Netrebko had not persuasively shown why Brierley needed to be deposed first, and that doing so would not be proportional to the needs of the case.
Judge Ona T. Wang denied without prejudice Netrebko’s request for a conference about compelling Brierley’s deposition. The court said Netrebko could renew the request after Gelb’s deposition, but would then have to explain why Brierley’s testimony would not duplicate party depositions or documents already produced.
The detailed version
- Netrebko v. Metropolitan Opera Association · No. 1:23-cv-06857
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 5, 2025
Discovery dispute
Anna Netrebko asked the court for a conference concerning a proposed motion to compel the defendants to produce Gillian Brierley, an employee of defendant Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc., for a deposition. The defendants opposed addressing that request immediately, arguing that the issue should wait at least until after the December deposition of defendant Peter Gelb.
Netrebko had previously raised the dispute about deposing Brierley. At an earlier status conference, Netrebko’s counsel said communications involving Brierley, including communications with The New York Times about what Gelb directed or discussed with her concerning the message about Netrebko’s termination, were relevant to state of mind and discriminatory motive. The court responded that Gelb’s deposition, along with his communications and statements, appeared likely to provide better evidence. The court also instructed Netrebko to first see what occurred in the depositions of the principal people the parties had agreed to depose before seeking depositions of non-parties.
Court’s reasoning
The court noted that two depositions remained: Gelb’s deposition and the deposition of the Metropolitan Opera Association. Netrebko did not make a persuasive showing that Brierley needed to be deposed before those remaining defendant depositions. The court therefore found that allowing a non-party deposition first would not be proportional to the needs of the case. The court cited the requirement that discovery, including subpoenas to non-parties, be relevant and proportional, and the rule limiting discovery that is cumulative or duplicative.
Ruling
Judge Ona T. Wang denied without prejudice Netrebko’s motion for a conference concerning compelling Brierley’s deposition until after Gelb is deposed. The court directed that, if Netrebko renews the request, she must show how Brierley’s deposition would not be cumulative or duplicative of the party depositions and document production completed by then. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF No. 129.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.