Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 7, 2020

Maleeff v. B Communications Ltd

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:17-cv-04937
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Maleeff v. B Communications Ltd, Judge Oetken ordered discovery deadlines and a deposition about BComm’s access to subsidiary records.

Who this affects

B Communications Ltd., the lead plaintiffs Rex and Roberta Ling Living Trust u/a December 6, 1990, as Amended, John Taylor Jones, and David Thomas Jones, and the parties’ ongoing discovery process.

What happened

In Maleeff v. B Communications Ltd, the lead plaintiffs said B Communications Ltd. had not produced enough information about its relationship with Bezeq, a subsidiary, before briefing a control issue.

The plaintiffs asked the court to require BComm to produce certain document requests, provide a corporate representative for a deposition about control and document access, and set a deadline for completing document production.

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the request, set deadlines for production and the deposition, stayed the existing discovery deadlines, and closed the motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Maleeff v. B Communications Ltd · No. 1:17-cv-04937
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Jan. 7, 2020

Background

The lead plaintiffs—Rex and Roberta Ling Living Trust u/a December 6, 1990, as Amended, John Taylor Jones, and David Thomas Jones—reported a discovery dispute with B Communications Ltd. (BComm). The dispute concerned information relevant to whether BComm had control over documents held by Bezeq, including D.B.S. Satellite Services (1998) Ltd. (“Yes”). The court had directed the parties to meet and confer about discovery relevant to a four-factor control test involving ownership and control, whether entities operate as one, access to documents in the ordinary course of business, and agency.

The plaintiffs said BComm had produced only a single PDF of public documents, apart from documents supporting an expert report. They requested documents showing requests by BComm officers or directors to Bezeq, a deposition of a BComm corporate representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) about control and document access, and a deadline for substantially completing document production. The plaintiffs also asked the court to require production of the requested documents within 15 days, hold the deposition within 20 days, and set a production deadline within 30 days.

Ruling

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the request. The court directed BComm to produce, by January 22, 2020, any requests from BComm to Bezeq for documents. It directed the plaintiffs to notice a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the control issues by January 27, 2020. The court also ordered BComm to complete all document production, absent unforeseen circumstances, by February 6, 2020. The parties were ordered to file a joint status letter by February 10, 2020, and the discovery deadlines were stayed pending resolution of the dispute. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 116.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.