Jones Real Estate, Inc. v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida
- P. Castel
- 1:18-cv-01949
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jones Real Estate v. American Bankers Insurance, Judge Castel’s materials show a request to move a corporate deposition, not a court ruling.
The letter identifies Jones Realty, Inc. and CIT Bank, N.A. as the relevant parties, but the supplied case caption names Jones Real Estate, Inc. and American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida; the affected parties are therefore unclear.
What happened
Jones Real Estate, Inc. v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida is identified in the supplied case information, but the text is a November 13, 2019 letter about a different caption: Jones Realty, Inc. v. CIT Bank, N.A., et al. The letter says the parties disagreed about where Jones Realty’s corporate deposition should occur.
The letter asks the court to require the deposition to take place in or near Saint Louis, Missouri, in person or by telephone, instead of New York. It argues that Jones Realty is a small business located about 1,000 miles away, that its employees are important to daily operations, and that the case and disputed products are connected to Missouri. The letter also says Jones Realty offered to let the defendant participate by telephone.
The text does not show a ruling or disposition by Judge P. Kevin Castel. It is a party’s request for court intervention under a local discovery rule, and the supplied materials do not state whether the request was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Jones Real Estate, Inc. v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida · No. 1:18-cv-01949
- P. Castel
- Nov. 18, 2019
Background
The supplied case information identifies the case as Jones Real Estate, Inc. v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida. The text itself, however, is a letter dated November 13, 2019 concerning Jones Realty, Inc. v. CIT Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 18-cv-01949 (S.D.N.Y.). The letter is addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel and seeks court intervention under Local Civil Rule 37.2.
Party’s request
The letter states that the parties could not agree where to conduct Jones Realty, Inc.’s scheduled corporate deposition. According to the letter, the defendant noticed the deposition for New York, while Jones Realty asked that it occur in Missouri. Jones Realty requested an order allowing the deposition to take place in Saint Louis, Missouri, either in person or by telephone.
The letter argues that Jones Realty is a small business headquartered in Missouri, approximately 1,000 miles from New York, and that its employees are important to the business’s daily operations. It also states that the case had been transferred to New York, that the relevant interaction and the phones involved in the dispute were in Missouri, and that Jones Realty had offered to allow the defendant’s counsel to participate by telephone. The letter further asserts that conducting the deposition in New York would impose undue hardship and that the defendant would not be prejudiced by a Missouri deposition.
Ruling and disposition
The supplied text contains no judicial ruling, reasoning by the court, or disposition of the discovery request. It does not state whether Judge Castel granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request. Because the text is a party letter rather than an order deciding the dispute, the affected case and parties cannot be determined with certainty from the supplied materials.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.