Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 7, 2025

Limited v. Guangzhou Batyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings CoO.

Full caption

Multi Access Limited v. Guangzhou Batyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings CoO., LTD. et al.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:20-cv-07397
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Multi Access v. Guangzhou Batyunshan, Judge Liman granted the deposition motion in part and granted sealing of Exhibit B.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Limited v. Guangzhou Batyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings CoO. · No. 1:20-cv-07397
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.