Teachey v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:18-cv-10740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Teachey v. Equinox, Judge Parker granted Equinox’s request to quash a subpoena because the deposition notice was not reasonable.
The ruling affected the plaintiff’s planned deposition of third-party witness Terrance Oben and Equinox Holdings, Inc.’s ability to receive notice and attend the deposition.
What happened
In Teachey v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Equinox asked the court to quash a subpoena requiring third-party witness Terrance Oben to testify at a deposition.
Equinox’s counsel said the plaintiff served the subpoena without notifying Equinox’s counsel and gave only short notice of the planned deposition. Equinox argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 requires reasonable written notice so the other party can attend and question the witness.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the application. The ruling required the subpoena to be quashed and called for reasonable advance notice before another subpoena is served.
The detailed version
- Teachey v. Equinox Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-10740
- Katharine Parker
- Jan. 28, 2020
Background
Equinox Holdings, Inc. asked the court to quash, meaning cancel, a subpoena requiring third-party witness Terrance Oben to appear for a deposition. The request was made in a letter from Equinox’s counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 and the court’s local meet-and-confer rule.
Parties’ Positions
Equinox’s counsel stated that the plaintiff served a subpoena dated January 7, 2020, by mail on January 9, 2020, but did not notify Equinox’s counsel. According to the letter, Equinox first learned of the scheduled January 28 deposition when the plaintiff filed an affidavit of service on the afternoon of January 24.
Equinox argued that Rule 30 requires a party seeking an oral deposition to give every other party reasonable written notice. It relied on decisions stating that short notice—generally less than one week in the cited cases—does not give the other party a fair opportunity to attend and question the witness. Equinox’s counsel also stated that he was unavailable on January 28 because of a deposition in another matter and that the plaintiff’s counsel proposed January 29 without providing reasonable advance notice or confirming Equinox’s availability.
Equinox asked the court to quash the subpoena and require reasonable advance notice of a new deposition date before another subpoena was served.
Ruling
The court marked the application “GRANTED” on January 28, 2020. The text provided does not include a separate written explanation or order beyond that notation, but the application sought to quash the subpoena and require reasonable advance notice before a new subpoena was served. Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.