Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-10578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shukla v. Deloitte, Judge Aaron ordered Ashu Shukla to attend a remote deposition and warned that refusal could lead to a dismissal recommendation.
Ashu Shukla was required to attend the remote deposition; Deloitte Consulting LLP’s request for a deposition was addressed by the order.
What happened
In Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, the court addressed Defendant’s request that Ashu Shukla attend a deposition. An earlier order contained an incorrect response deadline, and Shukla did not propose deposition dates by June 26, 2021.
The court vacated its June 25 order and replaced it with an amended order requiring Shukla to appear remotely for up to seven hours on July 23, 27, and/or 28, between 9:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Eastern time. The court did not dismiss the case, but warned that refusing or failing to appear could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed for disobeying discovery orders or failing to prosecute.
Stewart D. Aaron, the United States Magistrate Judge, issued the order. The order also stated that any additional document discovery based on deposition testimony was not foreclosed.
The detailed version
- Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP · No. 1:19-cv-10578
- Alison Nathan
- June 26, 2021
Background
Deloitte Consulting LLP asked the court to require Ashu Shukla to appear for a deposition on July 23, 27, or 28, 2021. The court’s June 22 order directed Shukla to respond by a stated deadline and warned that, if he did not respond or propose dates between July 17 and July 30, the court intended to order him to appear.
The June 22 order mistakenly identified the response deadline as Thursday, June 25, even though June 25 was Friday; the correct Thursday date was June 24. The court later entered an order stating that Shukla had missed the deadline. Shukla moved to vacate that June 25 order, arguing in part that it had been issued before his response deadline. As of June 26, he had not responded to Deloitte’s letter or proposed deposition dates.
Ruling
The court vacated the June 25 order and issued the amended and supplemental order in its place. It ordered Shukla to appear for a remote deposition for up to seven hours on July 23, 27, and/or 28, between 9:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Eastern time.
The order did not dismiss the case. Instead, it stated that if Shukla failed to make himself available for, or refused to proceed with, the deposition, Judge Aaron would recommend dismissal for failure to obey discovery orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) and/or failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
Additional discovery
The court stated that even if Shukla were correct that Deloitte should produce additional documents, that would not excuse his refusal to attend his own deposition. The court also stated that its deposition order did not prevent the parties from seeking additional documents based on deposition testimony.
Disposition
The June 25, 2021 order was vacated. Shukla was ordered to appear for the specified remote deposition, with a warning that noncompliance could result in a recommendation to dismiss the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.