Betts v. Sixty Lower East Side, LLC
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:20-cv-04772
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Betts v. Sixty Lower East Side, Judge Buchwald denied defendants’ request to quash a deposition subpoena and ordered the parties to choose a convenient date.
The ruling affected the defendants’ request to cancel Edward Maynard’s deposition subpoena and required the parties to arrange a mutually convenient deposition date.
What happened
In Betts v. Sixty Lower East Side, the defendants asked the court to cancel a subpoena requiring Edward Maynard to give a deposition. They argued that the plaintiff had already questioned several employees and that Maynard would not provide relevant additional information.
The defendants also argued that the subpoena gave Maynard too little time to comply. The plaintiff had issued the deposition notice on February 5, 2021, for a deposition on February 12, 2021.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied the application. She directed the parties to confer and agree on a mutually convenient date for Maynard’s deposition.
The detailed version
- Betts v. Sixty Lower East Side, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04772
- Naomi Buchwald
- Feb. 16, 2021
Background
The defendants requested that the court quash, or cancel, a subpoena for Edward Maynard’s deposition. The defendants’ letter identified the parties as Margaret Betts and Sixty Lower East Side, LLC, Sixty Hotels, LLC, and Sixty Hotel Manager, LLC.
The defendants said the plaintiff had already deposed William Grother, Felecia Stuart, Nicholas Riley, Samara Fares, Ben Edwards, Jennifer Villanueva, and Christopher Horn. They argued that these witnesses had provided information about the alleged incident and that a deposition of Maynard would be repetitive and inconsequential. The defendants also argued that Maynard likely lacked additional relevant information because Christopher Horn, who had worked directly under Maynard, said that he did not have direct knowledge of the incident.
Arguments about timing
The defendants separately argued that the subpoena did not allow a reasonable time to comply. They stated that the plaintiff issued the deposition notice on February 5, 2021, for a deposition on February 12, 2021. The defendants relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(i) and decisions concerning the amount of time ordinarily needed to respond to a subpoena.
Ruling
The court denied the application to quash the subpoena. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald directed the parties to confer and agree upon a mutually convenient date for Maynard’s deposition. The order does not state the court’s reasoning for denying the application.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.