Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:17-cv-00802
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc., Judge Gorenstein vacated permission for China video depositions and denied defendants’ default request.
The order affected the plaintiffs who were to be deposed in China and the defendants seeking reconsideration and dismissal concerning certain allegedly defaulting plaintiffs.
What happened
In Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc., the plaintiffs asked to be deposed by video while in China. The defendants objected, arguing that such depositions were not allowed under Chinese law, and also asked the court to dismiss claims against certain plaintiffs who had allegedly defaulted.
The court reconsidered its earlier permission for the video depositions because that permission had been granted without knowing that the defendants objected. It vacated the earlier ruling and denied the plaintiffs’ request to conduct the depositions in China. The court also denied the defendants’ request concerning the allegedly defaulting plaintiffs without prejudice, meaning the defendants could make the request again through a formal motion.
Judge Gorenstein issued the order. He directed that any formal dismissal motion be filed before Judge Daniels by February 21, 2020, and said any summary-judgment motion would also be due that day.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00802
- George Daniels
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs had requested permission to take video depositions of certain plaintiffs located in China. The court initially granted that request because it believed the defendants had not objected. The defendants later explained that they had objected, but their intended objection had not been properly filed. After the defendants filed the objection and sought reconsideration, the court addressed both the deposition request and the defendants’ separate request to dismiss the case as to certain allegedly defaulting plaintiffs.
Video Depositions in China
The defendants argued that depositions for use in foreign litigation were illegal in China. Although the defendants did not provide supporting authority, the court reviewed decisions addressing depositions in China and concluded that ordering video depositions there would violate Chinese domestic law. The court also noted that China generally requires evidence-gathering requests to proceed through the appropriate authority under the Hague Evidence Convention. The court did not decide the defendants’ separate argument that the plaintiffs had improperly delayed making the deposition request because the legality issue resolved the request.
The court granted the defendants’ request for reconsideration, vacated its earlier ruling, and denied the plaintiffs’ request to conduct video depositions of plaintiffs in China.
Request for Default
The defendants also asked the court to dismiss the case as to all “defaulting plaintiffs.” The court denied that request at this time without prejudice. It directed that any request for dismissal be made by formal motion, be returnable before Judge Daniels, be filed by February 21, 2020, and comply with Judge Daniels’s individual practices. The court stated that any motion for summary judgment would likewise be due on February 21, 2020.
Effect of the Order
The order resolved the discovery request concerning depositions in China and set requirements for any later dismissal request concerning allegedly defaulting plaintiffs. It did not rule on the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.