Amley v. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-03777
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ted Amley v. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Judge Moses granted in part Amley’s request, allowing Hiro Oshima’s deposition for 10 hours over two days.
Ted Amley and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, regarding the length of Hiro Oshima’s deposition.
What happened
In Ted Amley v. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Ted Amley asked the court to allow seven additional hours to question Hiro Oshima, a Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation witness involved in Amley’s workplace matters and termination.
Amley argued that Oshima was a key witness and that the additional time was needed for a fair examination. Amley also argued that the bank had not timely objected to extending Oshima’s deposition and that the request would not burden the bank.
The court granted Amley’s application in part and ordered that Oshima be available for a total of 10 deposition hours over two days. The order was signed by Judge Barbara C. Moses.
The detailed version
- Amley v. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-03777
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
The plaintiff asked the court for seven additional hours to depose Hiro Oshima, a witness for Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation. A deposition is a formal questioning of a witness under oath before trial. The request was made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d), which addresses the length of depositions and allows additional time when needed for a fair examination or when circumstances delay or impede questioning.
The plaintiff described Oshima as a key witness who had been the plaintiff’s workplace supervisor and held the position of Deputy General Counsel in the bank’s Legal Department. According to the plaintiff’s submission, Oshima was involved in discussions about the plaintiff’s medical leave and treatment, prepared and supervised a workplace rehabilitation and attendance plan, participated in the plaintiff’s termination, reviewed later work-performance reviews, interacted with other witnesses, and prepared or received important documents. The plaintiff also asserted that Oshima made the termination decision or was the driving force behind it.
Parties’ Positions
The plaintiff argued that Oshima’s role justified additional deposition time and cited decisions allowing extra time for significant or central witnesses. The plaintiff also argued that the bank had overstated the number and length of depositions the plaintiff planned to take. In addition, the plaintiff contended that the bank had waived an objection by not promptly challenging statements made at an earlier discovery hearing about allowing two days for Oshima’s deposition.
The opinion excerpt refers to the bank’s letter-motion and arguments but does not describe all of them in detail.
Ruling
The court stated that it had carefully considered the parties’ arguments. It granted the plaintiff’s application in part and ordered: “Hiro shall be available for deposition for a total of ten hours over two days.” The excerpt does not provide additional explanation for why the court selected 10 total hours rather than the seven additional hours requested.
Disposition
The plaintiff’s application was granted in part. The order concerned the permitted length of a deposition and did not decide the underlying workplace dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.