Meikle v. Transaction Network Services, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-00953
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Meikle v. Transaction Network Services, Judge Moses denied both sides’ requests to extend fact depositions after discovery closed.
Garrick Meikle and Transaction Network Services, Inc.; both sides were denied additional court-ordered deposition time, though they could agree among themselves to late deposition sessions if they met the remaining deadlines.
What happened
In Garrick Meikle v. Transaction Network Services, Inc., the parties disputed whether fact depositions should continue after the discovery deadline. The defendant sought about one more hour to question Meikle, while Meikle sought more time to question a company witness and to depose two additional employees.
The defendant blamed a late start, breaks, lunch, and Meikle’s lawyer leaving the deposition. Meikle responded that many breaks were the defendant’s responsibility, that the lawyers had not agreed the deposition would continue past 6:00 p.m., and that his lawyer had a childcare conflict. He also said he learned during another deposition that two employees had investigated his discrimination complaint.
The court denied both letter-motions because neither side showed a sufficient need for additional deposition time and both sides had failed to cooperate and meet the court’s requirements before seeking judicial help. Judge Moses said the parties could agree to late depositions if they could still meet the remaining deadlines.
The detailed version
- Meikle v. Transaction Network Services, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00953
- John Koeltl
- July 22, 2021
Background
This employment-discrimination case involved competing requests about depositions after fact discovery closed on July 21, 2021. Transaction Network Services, Inc. asked the court to compel Garrick Meikle to appear for a continued deposition during the week of July 26. The company said that Meikle’s July 19 deposition began late, included several breaks and a one-hour lunch, and ended when Meikle’s counsel left at 6:00 p.m. The company estimated that about one hour remained under the seven-hour questioning limit, but it did not identify topics it had been unable to cover.
Meikle opposed that request and said that most breaks were attributable to the company, the company had not requested a shorter lunch, and its counsel returned from lunch later than his counsel. Meikle also said his counsel had not expected the deposition to continue beyond 5:00 p.m. and could not stay beyond 6:00 p.m. because of a childcare issue.
Meikle offered to agree to an extension if the additional time could also be used for depositions of Shelley Carver and Ann-Marie Breggan and for continuing the deposition of Shanna Brown, the head of the company’s Human Resources Department. Meikle said he first learned during Brown’s July 13 deposition that Carver and Breggan had investigated his discrimination complaint. He did not explain why he had not earlier requested more time with Brown or why he scheduled Carver’s and Breggan’s depositions after the discovery deadline without court permission.
Court’s reasoning
The court emphasized that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the court and parties to use discovery procedures to reach a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution, and that the parties share responsibility for doing so. The court also cited the local rule requiring counsel to cooperate and be courteous during discovery, including when scheduling depositions.
The court found that the parties’ disputes involved petty complaints about deposition start times and lunch length rather than extraordinary circumstances or truly significant interests. It also found that both sides had ignored Judge Moses’s requirement that they meet and confer in good faith by telephone or in person before seeking court intervention. The court noted that the defendant had scheduled Meikle’s deposition close to the discovery deadline without discussing how late it might run, while Meikle’s counsel sought to use the defendant’s request for one additional hour as leverage for additional questioning of Brown and two new depositions.
Disposition
The court denied both letter-motions. It stated that fact discovery had concluded, that the defendant had not shown an actual need for one additional hour with Meikle, and that Meikle had not shown an actual need for more time with Brown or explained the delay in seeking depositions of the two additional witnesses. The parties could stipulate to one or more late fact-deposition sessions if they could comply with the remaining scheduling deadlines. The court directed the Clerk to close the letter-motion at Docket No. 39.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.