Filsoof v. Cole
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:21-cv-01791
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Filsoof v. Cole, Judge Buchwald denied Filsoof’s request for a 90-minute continued deposition about documents Cole produced afterward.
Rachel Carol Filsoof, whose application for a 90-minute continued deposition of Andrew J. Cole was denied.
What happened
Rachel Carol Filsoof asked the court to require Andrew J. Cole to sit for a 90-minute remote deposition. She said Cole had produced documents and information after his September 14, 2021 deposition.
Filsoof pointed to later document productions, supplemental answers identifying employers, tax returns, and materials related to Cole’s counterclaims. She argued that these late disclosures prevented her from questioning Cole about those subjects during his original deposition.
The court denied the application. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald did not provide a reason for the denial in the text provided.
The detailed version
- Filsoof v. Cole · No. 1:21-cv-01791
- Naomi Buchwald
- May 6, 2022
Background
Filsoof’s counsel asked the court for an update on part of Filsoof’s October 5, 2021 motion to compel. That request sought a 90-minute continued deposition of Cole by video conference so Filsoof could question him about documents and information produced after his September 14, 2021 deposition.
The letter stated that the court had issued a decision on December 1, 2021, but withdrew it the next day. The letter therefore asserted that the court had not yet ruled on the continued-deposition request.
Discovery at Issue
Filsoof identified several later disclosures by Cole: 50 pages of documents produced on January 21, 2022, concerning communications with third parties and Cole’s counterclaims for lost business opportunities and defamation; 11 pages of documents and supplemental answers served on March 3, 2022, concerning lost business opportunities and employers allegedly affected by Filsoof’s conduct; tax returns produced on March 22, 2022; and six pages of documents produced on October 7, 2021, concerning Cole’s replevin counterclaim and whether Cole had given items to Filsoof.
The letter also referred to the court’s April 27, 2022 order directing Cole to fully and completely answer an interrogatory about employers who allegedly stopped working with him because of Filsoof’s acts. Filsoof’s counsel argued that these disclosures created a need for additional questioning of Cole.
Ruling
The court stated: “Application denied. SO ORDERED.” Thus, the application for the requested continued deposition was denied. The text provided does not state the court’s reasoning.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.