Hanson v. Corsearch
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-08518
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Hanson v. Corsearch, Inc., Judge Subramanian granted in part a discovery-scheduling motion, setting deposition windows and locations.
The plaintiff, Corsearch, Inc., and the witnesses whose depositions were scheduled: Angela Williams, Charlotte de Metz, and Abel Clark.
What happened
In Hanson v. Corsearch, Inc., the plaintiff asked the court to schedule several depositions before the case’s discovery deadlines. The plaintiff said she could not travel for eight weeks after emergency surgery, while defendant insisted on taking her deposition in person in New York City before other depositions.
The court granted the motion in part. It ordered remote depositions of Angela Williams and Charlotte de Metz at mutually agreeable times in August 2026, and ordered Abel Clark’s individual and company-representative depositions at a mutually agreeable time in September 2026. Defendant may depose the plaintiff before August 24 remotely or in Idaho, or after August 24 in person in New York City.
Judge Subramanian issued the order on July 16, 2026, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 51.
The detailed version
- Hanson v. Corsearch · No. 1:25-cv-08518
- Subramanian
- July 16, 2026
Background
The plaintiff filed a letter-motion under Local Rule 37.2 concerning the order of the parties’ depositions. Defendant had previously noticed the plaintiff’s deposition for April 24, 2026, or another agreed date, at defense counsel’s offices in New York City. The plaintiff later sought depositions of Corsearch witnesses, including Abel Clark, Angela Williams, and Charlotte de Metz, who was designated as a company representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).
The plaintiff stated that she required emergency surgery in June 2026 and could not travel for eight weeks. She remained available for a remote deposition or a deposition in Idaho. According to the plaintiff, defendant insisted that her deposition occur first and in person in New York City, while also stating that Clark was unavailable for a deposition until September 15. The plaintiff argued that the federal discovery rules generally allow depositions in any sequence rather than giving automatic priority to the first deposition noticed.
Motion and Ruling
The court marked the letter-motion “GRANTED IN PART.” It ordered the remote depositions of Angela Williams and Charlotte de Metz to occur at mutually agreeable dates and times in August 2026.
It also ordered Abel Clark’s deposition, both individually and as a Rule 30(b)(6) company representative, to occur at a mutually agreeable date and time in September 2026, either in person or remotely.
The court further provided that defendant may depose the plaintiff at a mutually agreeable date and time before August 24, 2026, remotely or in person in Idaho. Alternatively, defendant may depose the plaintiff at a mutually agreeable date and time after August 24, 2026, in person in New York City. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 51.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.