E & T Skyline Construction, LLC v. Talisman Casualty Insurance Company, LLC

Background

E&T Skyline Construction, LLC served Talisman Casualty Insurance Company, LLC with a notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows a party to require an organization to designate a representative to testify about specified topics. E&T Skyline’s notice directed Talisman’s representative to appear at E&T Skyline’s counsel’s office in Uniondale, New York.

Talisman objected to the location and argued that the deposition should occur in Las Vegas, Nevada, identified in the opinion as Talisman’s principal place of business. The court explained that it has substantial discretion to select a deposition site. Although corporate depositions are generally presumed to occur at the corporation’s principal place of business, the court stated that this presumption does not apply when the plaintiff had little choice of forum, including when the parties agreed to a forum-selection provision.

Analysis

The performance bond at issue contained a provision that, according to E&T Skyline, gave exclusive jurisdiction to New York. The court found that Talisman therefore had notice that one of its representatives might be required to come to New York for proceedings related to the case. This factor favored Uniondale.

The court found that either location would create costs. E&T Skyline’s counsel would have to travel to Las Vegas if the deposition were held there, while Talisman would incur costs defending the deposition in Las Vegas because its counsel was in New York State. The cost factor therefore slightly favored Uniondale.

For convenience, the court considered the convenience of counsel, the defendant’s residence, and the extent to which travel would disrupt the defendant’s affairs. E&T Skyline argued that Talisman regularly conducted business and issued surety bonds in New York. Talisman did not provide reasons why travel by its witness would be especially burdensome. The court found that convenience favored E&T Skyline’s proposed location.

The court also found that litigation efficiency favored Uniondale because E&T Skyline represented that voluminous documents would need to be transported from New York for a deposition in Las Vegas, and Talisman did not dispute that point.

Disposition

The court concluded that the factors favored holding the deposition in Uniondale. Judge Sarah Netburn overruled Talisman’s objection and directed that the deposition proceed at a suitable date and time in Uniondale. The court also found that E&T Skyline’s application was made in good faith and that there was no basis to hold E&T Skyline responsible for the cost of Talisman’s witness’s travel.