Day v. MTA New York City Transit Authority
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:17-cv-07270-VSB
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Day v. MTA, Judge Broderick denied defendants’ request to delay their witnesses’ depositions until after Day’s deposition, ordering the noticed sequence.
Roy Day and the defendants’ witnesses in the pending employment-discrimination case; the parties were required to take depositions in the order their notices were served.
What happened
Day v. MTA New York City Transit Authority involved a dispute over the order of depositions in an employment-discrimination case. Defendants asked the court to prevent their witnesses from being deposed before Roy Day, whose deposition was scheduled for July 21, 2020.
Defendants argued that Day should testify first so they could prepare their witnesses and avoid possible prejudice. Day’s pro bono counsel argued that the parties had agreed depositions could begin before his deposition and that delaying the other depositions would hinder discovery.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the application. He ruled that the parties should proceed with depositions in the order in which the deposition notices were served.
The detailed version
- Day v. MTA New York City Transit Authority · No. 1:17-cv-07270-VSB
- Vernon Broderick
- July 7, 2020
Background
The parties asked the court to resolve a dispute about the sequence of depositions. Roy Day’s deposition was scheduled for July 21, 2020. Defendants had asked the court to issue protective orders preventing four defense witnesses—including two witnesses designated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)—from being deposed before Day.
The four witnesses were Joel Andrews, Rick Gorman, Michelle Rivera-Vargas, and Ruby Robinson. Their depositions had been noticed for July 7, 10, 14, and 17, respectively. The parties were also operating under a discovery deadline that the submission identifies as August 3, while discussing possible extensions.
Defendants’ Position
Defendants argued that Day should be deposed first. They said Day’s pleadings were unclear, that their witnesses needed to understand the issues in his claims, and that Day’s participation in the other depositions was important because he was proceeding without a lawyer except for limited assistance from pro bono counsel. Defendants also expressed concern that Day might change his testimony after hearing other witnesses’ testimony.
Defendants relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits a court to issue a protective order for good cause, and argued that the court had discretion to require a particular deposition order.
Day’s Position
Day’s counsel argued that federal discovery generally has no required sequence and that the parties had agreed that Day did not have to be deposed first. Counsel said Day’s deposition notices had been served first and that delaying the defense witnesses would unnecessarily slow discovery. Counsel also argued that Day could participate in the other depositions by telephone if necessary and that the witnesses’ testimony should not depend on Day’s testimony.
Ruling
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(3), which states that discovery methods may be used in any sequence. Although the rule permits a court to give priority to particular discovery on motion and by order, the court found that defendants had not shown that such intervention was warranted.
The application was denied. The parties were directed to proceed with depositions in the order in which the deposition notices were served. The order addressed the discovery schedule and deposition sequence; the provided text does not decide the underlying employment-discrimination claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.