Grunberg 77 LLC v. B.R. Guest Parent Holdings, LLC
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:17-cv-05627
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Grunberg 77 LLC v. B.R. Guest, Judge Hellerstein ordered a damages-focused deposition, allowed Badway’s deposition at plaintiff’s cost, and barred deposition of lead counsel Phillips.
The order affected Grunberg 77 LLC, B.R. Guest Parent Holdings, LLC, 359 Columbus Avenue, L.L.C. (doing business as Isabella’s), and the witnesses involved in the disputed depositions.
What happened
Grunberg 77 LLC v. B.R. Guest Parent Holdings, LLC involved three discovery disputes: whether defendants could take a deposition about damages, whether plaintiff could depose Ernest A. Badway, and whether defendants could depose plaintiff’s lead counsel, Edward J. Phillips.
The parties disagreed about the scope and timing of these depositions. Defendants said a deposition of a designated company witness was needed because damages were important and earlier depositions had not fully explored them. Plaintiff challenged Badway’s testimony and objected to producing Phillips.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ruled for defendants on the damages deposition, allowed plaintiff to depose Badway at its own expense, and barred defendants from deposing Phillips. Plaintiff also had to designate another company witness to testify about the reasonableness of the disputed fees.
The detailed version
- Grunberg 77 LLC v. B.R. Guest Parent Holdings, LLC · No. 1:17-cv-05627
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Feb. 12, 2020
Background
The parties jointly asked the court to resolve three discovery disputes. Discovery is the pretrial process for exchanging information and taking depositions. The disputes concerned:
- Plaintiff’s refusal to proceed with a deposition of a company witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which permits an organization to designate a witness to testify about specified topics;
- Defendants’ identification of Ernest A. Badway, Esq., as a new witness and refusal to produce him for deposition; and
- Plaintiff’s refusal to produce Edward J. Phillips, Esq., its lead counsel, for deposition.
Rulings
The court found for defendants on the first dispute. It held that damages were a critical issue and that a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition limited to the topics listed in defendants’ notice would help streamline the trial. The court therefore required plaintiff to proceed with that deposition.
On the second dispute, the court ruled partially for each side. It held that plaintiff’s argument that Badway’s testimony was inadmissible was better addressed through motions in limine, which are pretrial requests to exclude evidence. Defendants could call Badway at trial, subject to any ruling on those motions. The court also held that plaintiff had not waived its right to depose Badway, but denied plaintiff’s request that defendants pay the deposition costs. Plaintiff could depose Badway before trial at its own expense.
On the third dispute, the court ruled partially for each side. It held that defendants were not permitted to depose Phillips. However, plaintiff had to designate another Rule 30(b)(6) witness competent to testify about the reasonableness of the disputed fees.
Disposition
The court resolved the three discovery disputes as described above and entered the order. The opinion does not state a separate ruling on the underlying merits of the parties’ claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.