Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 8, 2022

Ampong v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:21-cv-02049
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ampong v. Costco, Judge Aaron granted in part and denied in part Costco’s discovery motion, requiring a narrowed Rule 30(b)(6) witness designation.

Who this affects

The ruling affects the plaintiff’s requested deposition of Costco Wholesale Corporation and Costco’s obligation to designate a witness and provide testimony about the allegedly involved pallet or display.

What happened

Ampong v. Costco Wholesale Corp. concerns a planned deposition of a Costco witness in a lawsuit about a customer’s alleged trip and fall at a Costco warehouse. The plaintiff sought testimony about the placement, installation, maintenance, and inspection of the pallet or display involved in the accident.

Costco argued that the plaintiff’s deposition notice was vague, too broad, and lacked time limits. It asked the court to limit the topics to the display involved in the accident and to a reasonable period before the accident. Costco also said it was willing to produce a witness if the plaintiff served a more specific notice.

The court granted in part and denied in part Costco’s letter motion. Judge Aaron ordered Costco to designate a witness to testify about the placement, installation, maintenance, and inspection of the allegedly involved pallet or display during the six months before the accident through the date of the accident. The court said those terms should have their ordinary English meanings.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ampong v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-02049
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Sept. 8, 2022

Background

The dispute concerned a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, which allows a party to require an organization to identify and prepare a witness to testify about specified topics. The plaintiff’s deposition of Costco was scheduled for September 9, 2022. The plaintiff served a deposition notice on September 7, 2022, seeking testimony about the “placement, installation, maintenance and inspection” of pallets and displays at the Costco warehouse.

The opinion states that the lawsuit arose from an alleged trip and fall at the warehouse on December 19, 2019. Costco said the plaintiff had testified and stated in supplemental interrogatory responses that she tripped over a rolled-up carpet. Costco also said that video showed her tripping over a television stand while looking over her right shoulder. After the video was exchanged, the plaintiff served a corrected or supplemental interrogatory response attributing the fall to the television stand’s location.

The Discovery Dispute

Costco sought to quash the deposition notice or obtain a protective order limiting its topics. It argued that the notice did not describe the subjects with reasonable particularity, used vague and undefined terms, had no time limits, and sought information about all pallets and displays at the warehouse rather than the item allegedly involved in the accident. Costco requested that the notice be limited to the relevant pallet or display, cover six months before the accident through the accident date, and define the four disputed terms.

The opinion states that Costco asked the plaintiff’s counsel for a proper notice and later requested a supplemental notice. Costco said the plaintiff declined to revise the notice. Costco also stated that it was willing to produce a witness if the plaintiff provided a properly limited notice.

Ruling

The court’s order states: “Defendant’s Letter Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.” The court required Costco to designate a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify about the placement, installation, maintenance, and inspection of the pallet or display allegedly involved in the accident for the six-month period before the accident through the accident date. The court directed that those terms be understood according to their ordinary English meanings. The order does not state additional details about which portions of Costco’s motion were denied.

The order is addressed to and signed by Stewart D. Aaron.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.