Alvarado Balderramo v. Go New York Tours Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:15-cv-02326
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Alvarado Balderramo v. Go New York Tours Inc., Judge Ramos granted defendants’ request in part, allowing two more deposition hours with translation accommodation.
The defendants may conduct two additional hours of deposition questioning of Mr. Alvarado, with an accommodation for translation; the clerk must terminate Document 232.
What happened
In Alvarado Balderramo v. Go New York Tours Inc., defendants asked for more time to question Mr. Alvarado at a deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel opposed the request, stating that defendants had already questioned him for six hours and had used some of that time on irrelevant or intimidating subjects.
The submission argued that Mr. Alvarado’s need for an interpreter did not automatically justify more time, and that defendants had already covered relevant work and pay topics. It also argued that defendants had not shown a need for additional questioning under the federal discovery rules.
Judge Ramos granted defendants’ request in part. He allowed defendants to depose the plaintiff for two additional hours and required an appropriate accommodation for translation. The clerk was directed to terminate Document 232.
The detailed version
- Alvarado Balderramo v. Go New York Tours Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-02326
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 27, 2021
Background
The court considered defendants’ request for additional deposition time for Mr. Alvarado. The supplied text consists primarily of plaintiffs’ counsel’s April 26, 2021 submission opposing that request, followed by Judge Ramos’s order.
Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that defendants had questioned Mr. Alvarado for six hours on April 15, 2021, excluding breaks and other off-the-record periods, and then ended the deposition. Counsel argued that defendants had not shown that more time was needed to examine Mr. Alvarado fairly. The submission also argued that defendants had spent time on subjects counsel characterized as irrelevant, harassing, or intimidating, including family and tax information, immigration status, attorney-client communications, the attorney-client relationship and fee arrangements, prior employment and litigation, and alleged cash payments.
Legal standard discussed
The submission cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1), which generally limits a deposition to one day and seven hours unless the parties stipulate otherwise or the court orders otherwise. The rule requires additional time when needed for a fair examination or when a person or circumstance has impeded or delayed the examination. The submission also cited Rule 26(b)(1), which limits discovery to nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. It argued that the need for an interpreter is a factor the court may consider, not an automatic entitlement to more time.
Ruling
Judge Ramos ordered that defendants’ request was granted in part. Defendants may depose the plaintiff for two additional hours, and an appropriate accommodation must be provided to account for translation. The clerk was respectfully directed to terminate Document 232. The order does not state the duration of additional time defendants had requested or explain the court’s reasons beyond these directives.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.