Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-04362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff, Judge Cronan denied without prejudice Bischoff’s request to take more than ten depositions.
Eric Bischoff’s request for additional depositions was denied without prejudice; Frank Brunckhorst III and the Trustees opposed the request, and the ruling sets conditions for any renewed request.
What happened
In Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff, Eric Bischoff asked to take twenty fact-witness depositions instead of the ten allowed without court permission. He said the case’s large amount at stake and the witnesses’ relevant information justified more depositions.
The Trustees and Frank Brunckhorst III opposed the request. They argued that Bischoff had not shown the extra depositions were necessary or that they would not repeat information obtained elsewhere. The court also noted that Bischoff had not identified which witnesses he would depose within his first ten depositions, ranked the witnesses, or explained their relative importance.
Judge Cronan denied the motion without prejudice. The court said Bischoff may file another request after taking at least seven fact-witness depositions, meeting and conferring with the other parties, ranking the proposed depositions, and giving specific reasons they would not be cumulative or duplicative.
The detailed version
- Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff · No. 1:21-cv-04362
- John Cronan
- Oct. 12, 2022
Background
Eric Bischoff, a defendant and counterclaim-plaintiff, asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i) to take twenty fact-witness depositions. That rule requires court permission for more than ten depositions when the parties have not agreed to the additional discovery. Bischoff wanted to depose people whom Frank Brunckhorst III or the Trustees had identified as having relevant information.
Bischoff argued that the amount at stake was large, that the proposed witnesses had relevant information otherwise unavailable to him, and that the depositions would not be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. He also argued that the witnesses were accessible to Brunckhorst but not to him, and that the depositions were needed to prepare for trial and avoid surprise.
Opposition and Legal Standard
The Trustees opposed the motion because Bischoff had not yet taken his first ten depositions, making it impossible to determine whether additional depositions would repeat information already obtained. Brunckhorst also opposed the motion, arguing that Bischoff had not shown the additional depositions were necessary.
The court explained that a party seeking more than ten depositions must show cause for exceeding the limit. The court must limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, available from a more convenient or less burdensome source, or whose burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Bischoff had not identified which witnesses he planned to depose within his initial ten depositions and which he wanted to depose only if the court granted permission. He also had not explained the relative importance of the proposed depositions. The court rejected the idea that the identification of more than ten potentially relevant witnesses automatically entitled Bischoff to depose all of them.
The court further concluded that the information submitted by Bischoff did not allow it to determine whether the additional depositions would be cumulative or duplicative, or whether their likely benefit would outweigh their burden. Bischoff therefore failed to meet his burden of justifying more than ten depositions.
Disposition
The court denied Bischoff’s motion without prejudice. It stated that Bischoff could seek permission again after taking at least seven fact-witness depositions, provided that he first met and conferred with Brunckhorst and the Trustees. Any renewed motion must rank the proposed depositions and give specific reasons why the expected testimony would not duplicate prior testimony or other discovery. The Clerk was directed to close the motions pending at Docket Numbers 174 and 175.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.