Amley v. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation

Background

Defendant Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation asked the court for seven additional hours to depose plaintiff Ted Amley under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d). Amley’s deposition had been scheduled for January 7, 2021, with a possible second day during the week of January 18. SMBC argued that two full days were needed to fairly question Amley, whom it described as the key witness.

SMBC pointed to the 143-paragraph complaint and the number of issues it said needed to be covered, including Amley’s employment, alleged poor performance, alleged disability, communications with healthcare providers, any request for accommodation, leave and accommodation policies, absences and tardiness, the alleged retention and dissemination of privileged information, and damages. SMBC also said Amley had noticed ten depositions of SMBC-related people, while SMBC had noticed only Amley’s deposition among the parties’ witnesses.

Parties’ Positions

SMBC argued that Amley had previously agreed to a second deposition day and later improperly conditioned that agreement on SMBC providing a second day for Hiro Oshima’s deposition. According to SMBC, Amley’s counsel initially agreed to two days, but later said the agreement was subject to Oshima also receiving two days.

The opinion does not set out a separate written response from Amley. It recounts that, during a court conference, Amley’s counsel stated that Amley’s agreement to two days was subject to Oshima being allowed two days. The court also noted that later scheduling discussions placed Amley’s second deposition day on the calendar without an agreement granting Oshima a second day.

Ruling

Judge Barbara Moses stated that Amley must be available for two days of deposition totaling 14 hours. The court granted SMBC’s letter-motion to that extent. The court did not rule on whether Amley may receive additional time for Oshima’s deposition. Instead, it stated that, without a stipulation or court order concerning Oshima, Amley could not hold his own deposition “hostage” to a requested reciprocal arrangement. The court said that any further request concerning Oshima’s deposition had to be made promptly and reminded the parties that discovery closed on January 22, 2021.

What the Order Decided

This was a discovery ruling about the length of a deposition. It did not decide the merits of Amley’s underlying claims or SMBC’s defenses.