Major League Baseball Properties v. Corporacion de Television y Microonda Rafa
Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Corporacion de Television y Microonda Rafa, S.A.
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-08669
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Major League Baseball Properties v. Corporacion de Television, Judge Vyskocil denied Telemicro’s request for remote depositions without prejudice.
Telemicro International Holding Corporation and Ms. Rosario, whose requested deposition arrangement was not approved; Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. is the opposing party involved in the deposition dispute.
What happened
In Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Corporacion de Television y Microonda Rafa, S.A., Telemicro International Holding Corporation asked the court to allow the deposition of Ms. Rosario to take place by telephone or another remote method.
Telemicro argued that remote depositions were appropriate because courts had encouraged them during the COVID-19 emergency and because Major League Baseball Properties had allowed other witnesses to testify virtually. Telemicro said it remained willing to comply with the court’s earlier order requiring the deposition.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Telemicro’s request without prejudice. She said Telemicro had not explained why remote depositions were necessary in the circumstances of this case, but it could make the request again with a specific explanation.
The detailed version
- Major League Baseball Properties v. Corporacion de Television y Microonda Rafa · No. 1:19-cv-08669
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 14, 2022
Background
Telemicro International Holding Corporation, represented by Henry E. Marines, asked the court to order that the deposition of Ms. Rosario be conducted by telephone or another remote method under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4). The request followed an earlier court order requiring Ms. Rosario and Telemicro to appear for deposition within 21 days. Telemicro stated that it had agreed to a March 22, 2022 deposition date and remained committed to complying with the court’s order.
Telemicro relied on courts’ encouragement of remote depositions during the COVID-19 emergency and stated that Major League Baseball Properties had accommodated other witnesses with virtual depositions. Telemicro also said it would provide information available to it under Rule 69, while reserving its position that overly broad or burdensome requests could be challenged.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Telemicro’s request without prejudice. The court found that Telemicro had not explained why remote depositions were necessary in this case, beyond pointing to other courts’ encouragement of remote proceedings during COVID-19. The court stated that Telemicro could seek remote depositions again, but it would need to provide a specific explanation for why they were necessary under the circumstances.
Effect of the Order
The order did not grant the request for remote depositions. It left open the possibility of a renewed request supported by a specific explanation of necessity.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.