Amley v. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation

Background

The document is a letter from plaintiff Ted Amley concerning discovery. It responds to Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation’s request for seven additional hours to depose Amley and asks for seven additional hours to depose Hiro Oshima, scheduled for January 11, 2021. Amley relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d), which permits additional deposition time when needed for a fair examination or when circumstances delay the examination.

Parties’ Positions

Amley argued that Oshima was a key witness for Sumitomo Mitsui. According to Amley, Oshima was Amley’s workplace supervisor, served as Deputy General Counsel in Sumitomo Mitsui’s Legal Department, participated in discussions about Amley’s medical leave and treatment, helped create and administer a workplace rehabilitation and attendance plan, reviewed later work-performance evaluations, interacted with other witnesses, worked on important documents, and made or drove the decision to terminate Amley.

Amley also argued that Sumitomo Mitsui had not objected for more than a month after an email in which Amley reserved the right to continue depositions if more than one day was needed. Amley characterized Sumitomo Mitsui’s description of the anticipated depositions as exaggerated and said the total anticipated deposition time would be less than 28 hours. Amley requested an expedited response.

Court’s Action

Judge Barbara C. Moses ordered Sumitomo Mitsui to respond to Amley’s letter-motion by January 5, 2021. The response was limited to two pages. The supplied text does not include a ruling granting or denying the request for seven additional hours to depose Oshima.