SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-02637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SM Kids v. Google, Judge Aaron partly granted and partly denied a protective-order motion limiting depositions.
SM Kids, LLC and the defendants, including Google LLC, because the order controlled the scope of depositions and required further discussion of remaining discovery issues.
What happened
SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC concerns SM Kids’s request to limit depositions of Stephen Garchik and SM Kids under the federal deposition rules.
The plaintiff asked the court to restrict questions on several deposition topics, including questions about the factual basis for its claims and its damages theories. The parties discussed the request during a telephone conference.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted the motion in part and denied it in part: he denied the request for Topics 1, 2, and 6, struck Topic 3, and allowed testimony about the plaintiff’s damages theories for Topics 11 through 14 while otherwise limiting those topics. The court denied as moot the request concerning Topics 7 and 8 and ordered the parties to discuss the remaining issues.
The detailed version
- SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC · No. 1:18-cv-02637
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 5, 2021
Background
SM Kids, LLC, as successor-in-interest to Stelor Productions, LLC, filed a letter motion seeking a protective order. A protective order is a court order limiting or controlling discovery. The motion sought limits on the fact deposition of Stephen Garchik and the deposition of SM Kids under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows an organization to designate a person to testify about specified topics.
After a telephone conference with the parties, the court ruled on the deposition topics.
Rulings
The court stated that the letter motion was granted in part and denied in part.
- The request concerning Topics 7 and 8 was denied as moot because SM Kids said it would withdraw the motion as to those topics. - The request concerning Topics 1, 2, and 6 was denied. The court cited decisions stating that questions about the factual basis for allegations and claims may be proper deposition subjects. - Topic 3 was stricken for the reasons stated on the record. - As to Topics 11 through 14, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. The defendants were allowed to seek testimony about SM Kids’s theory or theories of damages. - The parties were ordered to meet and confer about testimony concerning events before 2018 and file a joint letter by February 9, 2021, identifying any remaining issues. The letter also had to address whether the parties had reached a stipulation concerning Topic 10.
The order was entered by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.