United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:19-cv-04355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied Veronica Kontilai’s request to delay her deposition but imposed limits.
Veronica Kontilai, whose deposition must proceed subject to the court’s time, scheduling, and video requirements; the parties must coordinate the deposition dates.
What happened
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., Veronica Kontilai asked the court to stay her deposition until her psychiatrist medically cleared her. She supported the request with a brief medical note.
The court found that the note was conclusory and did not explain why the deposition could not occur. The court also found no competent evidence that the deposition would burden Kontilai beyond the ordinary experience of being deposed.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied the motion for a protective order. He required the deposition to occur by video, limited questioning to three and one-half hours per day, and required at least two business days between deposition days if more time was needed.
The detailed version
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04355
- Victor Marrero
- July 23, 2020
Background
Veronica Kontilai moved for a protective order staying her deposition until she was medically cleared by her psychiatrist, Dr. Laurence R. Saben. She submitted a brief note from Dr. Saben stating that she should not be deposed until a future time when her condition was stable.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the requirement that a person seeking to avoid or delay a deposition must show a clearly defined, specific, and serious injury that would result from being deposed. The court found Dr. Saben’s note conclusory because it gave no basis for the opinion that the deposition could not take place at that time. The court also found that Kontilai’s memorandum did not identify the risks of a lengthy deposition or explain why the deposition would take place over a prolonged period.
The court gave no weight to a statement in Kontilai’s reply brief reporting that Dr. Saben’s office expected Kontilai might be deposed in 60 days. The court described that statement as double hearsay and noted that the submission did not identify when the conversation occurred, who participated, or why it reliably reflected Dr. Saben’s medical opinion.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied Kontilai’s motion for a protective order. As a precaution, the court ordered that the deposition occur by video, that Kontilai not be questioned for more than three and one-half hours in one day, and that any second deposition day be scheduled at least two business days later. Kontilai was ordered to appear on dates agreed to by the parties, no earlier than August 10, 2020. If the parties could not agree, they could submit proposed dates by letter, and the court would set the dates.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.