Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide"
- Andrew Carter
- 1:18-cv-06626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Actava TV v. Channel One Russia Worldwide, Judge Fox denied Kartina’s reconsideration application, leaving Panfilova’s deposition order in place.
Kartina Digital GmbH’s request to reconsider the order requiring Olga Panfilova’s deposition was denied; the plaintiffs’ deposition request was not altered by this order.
What happened
In Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company “Channel One Russia Worldwide,” the plaintiffs sought to depose Olga Panfilova, while Kartina Digital GmbH sought protection from the deposition because of Panfilova’s medical condition. The court previously found that the submitted medical affidavits did not show that Panfilova could not be deposed orally and ordered the deposition scheduled promptly.
Kartina later submitted a letter with a newer affidavit from Panfilova’s treating physician, explaining why Panfilova allegedly could not be deposed orally. The court treated the letter as a request to reconsider its earlier order, even though Kartina did not specifically label it that way.
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied Kartina’s application for reconsideration. He ruled that it improperly presented new information that had not been submitted with the original request and that Kartina had not asked to provide additional information before the court decided whether to compel the deposition.
The detailed version
- Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" · No. 1:18-cv-06626
- Andrew Carter
- May 5, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs sought to depose Olga Panfilova. The defendants sought a protective order preventing an oral deposition, arguing that Panfilova had a medical condition that made an oral deposition impossible. Kartina Digital GmbH submitted affidavits concerning Panfilova’s condition.
After reviewing those affidavits privately, the court determined on April 30, 2021, that they did not establish that Panfilova’s current condition prevented her from being deposed. The court therefore ordered that her deposition be scheduled promptly. The plaintiffs advised the court that the deposition was scheduled for May 11, 2021, and could continue on May 13 if necessary.
Kartina’s application
Kartina then submitted a letter with an affidavit from Panfilova’s treating physician dated May 4, 2021. Kartina said the affidavit provided a diagnosis and explained in detail why Panfilova’s condition allegedly prevented an oral deposition. Kartina also explained that the earlier affidavits had been dated July 2020 and were the only affidavits available when they were submitted.
Although Kartina did not specifically identify the letter as such, the court treated it as an application for reconsideration or reargument under Local Civil Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is a request for the court to revisit an order it has already issued.
Court’s reasoning
The court found the application improper for two reasons. First, it presented new information that had not been before the court on the original request. Second, Kartina had not asked for permission to submit additional information when it originally submitted the affidavits, and it had not told the court that more information was unavailable but needed before the court ruled.
The court stated that Local Civil Rule 6.3 is not a way for a dissatisfied party to present new theories or obtain a rehearing on issues already decided.
Disposition
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied Kartina’s application for reconsideration of the order requiring Panfilova’s deposition. The opinion does not state that the deposition itself was cancelled or otherwise modified.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.