Limited v. Guangzhou Batyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings CoO.
Multi Access Limited v. Guangzhou Batyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings CoO., LTD. et al.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-07397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Multi Access v. Guangzhou Batyunshan, Judge Liman granted the deposition motion in part and granted sealing of Exhibit B.
Multi Access Limited and the defendants Guangzhou Wang Lao Ji Great Health Industry Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Wang Lao Ji Great Health Enterprise Development Co., Ltd.; the order also concerns the defendants named in the caption, Guangzhou Batyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings CoO., LTD. et al.
What happened
In Multi Access Limited v. Guangzhou Batyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings CoO., LTD. et al., Multi Access asked the court to require two defendants to provide a corporate witness for questioning on 26 remaining topics for eight more hours.
The court found that the witness had often been unprepared and that an interpreter had delayed the deposition. It concluded that six additional hours were justified and ordered the defendants to provide Ms. Li or another properly prepared witness.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the deposition motion in part, granted Multi Access’s request to file Exhibit B under seal, and directed the clerk to close the two listed motions.
The detailed version
- Limited v. Guangzhou Batyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings CoO. · No. 1:20-cv-07397
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 7, 2025
Background
Multi Access Limited moved for an order requiring Guangzhou Wang Lao Ji Great Health Industry Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Wang Lao Ji Great Health Enterprise Development Co., Ltd. to produce a corporate witness for additional questioning. The request concerned the 26 topics remaining from a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows a party to designate a witness to testify for an organization about stated subjects. Multi Access requested eight additional hours.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that additional deposition time may be allowed when needed for a fair examination or when the witness, another person, or another circumstance delays the examination. An organization must prepare its designated witness to provide knowledgeable answers, even when the witness lacks personal knowledge of the subjects. The court also stated that counsel may ask how the witness prepared, including conversations used to obtain information relevant to the deposition topics.
After reviewing Ms. Li’s deposition transcript, the court found that she was frequently unprepared to testify about the noticed subjects. The deposition also took additional time because an interpreter was needed. Ms. Li testified for five hours and 45 minutes, and the court found good cause for six additional hours. The defendants were ordered to properly prepare Ms. Li or another witness, with the warning that inadequate preparation could lead to an extension of the deposition or a motion for sanctions.
Rulings
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted in part Multi Access’s motion to compel the defendants to produce a witness. The defendants must produce Ms. Li or another properly prepared witness to testify about the remaining 26 topics for a total of six additional hours of questioning time. The court additionally granted Multi Access’s motion to file Exhibit B under seal. The clerk was directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 266 and 267.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.