Cohodes v. MIMEDX GROUP

Background

Marc Cohodes alleges that Daniel Guy, an officer and director of Harrington Global Opportunities Fund, hired a private investigator to spy on Cohodes for information that could be used in possible lawsuits and to damage Cohodes’s reputation. The pending dispute concerned the depositions of Guy in two capacities: individually and as Harrington’s representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Under that rule, a corporation must designate a witness to testify about information known or reasonably available to the corporation, with answers that bind the corporation.

Rulings on the Discovery Dispute

Deposition length and separate capacities. Defendants sought to limit Guy’s deposition to seven hours, arguing that he had already been deposed for approximately four hours regarding jurisdiction. The court declined to impose that requested limit, explaining that additional testimony may be appropriate when an earlier deposition concerned jurisdictional discovery only.

Defendants alternatively argued that Guy should not have to testify both individually and as Harrington’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee. The court rejected that position and permitted two separate depositions. It explained that a corporate representative provides the corporation’s position and answers that bind the corporation, and that the questions and answers may differ even when topics overlap. The court also noted that Cohodes had conditioned an earlier proposal for one combined deposition on Guy’s agreement that Harrington was his alter ego, and Guy refused to make that stipulation.

The court rejected Defendants’ argument that two depositions were disproportionate merely because the case involved only two claims. It stated that Defendants cited no authority showing that discovery is automatically limited based on the number of claims.

Repeated questions. Defendants argued that Guy should not have to answer questions he believed he had already answered. Cohodes argued that merits discovery could justify asking additional questions. The court agreed with Cohodes, stating that information learned during merits discovery could require further questioning. The court also noted that Harrington had not yet been deposed, so Cohodes would be entitled to ask Guy questions as Harrington’s designee and obtain answers binding Harrington.

Rule 30(b)(6) topics. Defendants briefly argued that Cohodes should identify the broadest Rule 30(b)(6) topics with reasonable particularity, but they did not attach the proposed topics or adequately explain their objection. The court found that Defendants failed to establish that any topics were overbroad or disproportionate to the needs of the case.

Remote depositions. Defendants requested that the depositions occur by videoconference because Guy resides in Bermuda. Cohodes did not object, and the court observed that Guy’s prior deposition had occurred by videoconference. The court therefore allowed the depositions to proceed remotely.

Disposition

The court issued the discovery order resolving the parties’ dispute and stated that the order disposes of Docket No. 248. The opinion does not state that a motion was granted or denied.