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 SEC v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., Magistrate Judge Gorenstein conditionally allowed Kontilai’s videoconference deposition in Belarus, or alternatively Ukraine or New York.
Mykalai Kontilai and the Securities and Exchange Commission, concerning the location and format of Kontilai’s deposition.
What happened
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., Mykalai Kontilai asked to give his deposition somewhere other than New York, preferring Minsk, Belarus, or Ukraine. The court considered cost, convenience, efficiency, and safety during the global pandemic.
The Securities and Exchange Commission argued that Belarusian authorities’ permission was required for a video deposition there. Kontilai did not provide supporting evidence about the travel-time difference or the required permission.
Magistrate Judge Gorenstein granted Kontilai’s application conditionally: he could testify by videoconference from Belarus if he filed the required affidavit and proof of permission by August 18, 2020. If he did not, he could testify from Ukraine under similar filing conditions; otherwise, the deposition would take place live in New York.
The detailed version
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04355
- Victor Marrero
- Aug. 10, 2020
Background
The court considered the parties’ letters concerning Mykalai Kontilai’s application to hold his deposition outside New York. Kontilai sought to appear by videoconference from Minsk, Belarus, or Ukraine, with a preference for Minsk. The court considered cost, convenience, litigation efficiency, and party safety, and concluded that a videoconference would serve important safety interests during the global pandemic.
Issues and Positions
Kontilai asserted that Minsk was preferable because it was only a “five” hour drive from Moscow. The court found that he provided no evidence for that assertion and noted that Google Maps showed an approximately eight-hour-and-45-minute drive to Minsk and an approximately 10-hour-and-15-minute drive to Kiev, a difference of about one and a half hours.
The Securities and Exchange Commission argued that a video deposition in Belarus required permission from Belarusian authorities. Kontilai responded with authority concerning the Hague Convention, which the court stated was not applicable.
Ruling
The court granted Kontilai’s application to hold the deposition by videoconference in Belarus, subject to two conditions: by August 18, 2020, he had to file an affidavit describing arrangements to ensure the deposition proceeded without interruption and documents showing that the appropriate Belarusian authorities had permitted the deposition. A Belarus deposition had to occur by August 28, 2020, unless the parties agreed otherwise in writing.
If Kontilai failed to satisfy those conditions, the court would alternatively permit a videoconference from Ukraine if he filed, by August 25, 2020, an affidavit describing the arrangements for an uninterrupted deposition. A Ukraine deposition had to occur by September 4, 2020, unless the parties agreed otherwise in writing. If he failed to satisfy the conditions for both locations, the deposition would take place live in New York on September 11, 2020, at a location specified by the Securities and Exchange Commission, unless the parties agreed otherwise in writing. The court also directed the parties to try to agree on the details of any video deposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.