Hong v. Mommy's Jamaican Market Corp.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-09612
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hong v. Mommy’s Jamaican Market, Judge Liman denied protection and ordered Kim’s oral deposition within 21 days.
The ruling directly affected Myong Soo Kim, who was ordered to appear for an oral deposition, the defendants, whose request for a protective order was denied, and the plaintiff, whose motion to compel was granted.
What happened
In Hong v. Mommy’s Jamaican Market Corp., the defendants asked the court to prevent an oral deposition of Myong Soo Kim, relying on a doctor’s note about Kim’s age and health. The plaintiff asked the court to require the deposition.
The court found that the doctor’s note did not show Kim would be harmed by an oral deposition. It said ordinary accommodations, such as hourly breaks, could address the concerns, and noted Kim’s importance as an alleged co-owner and co-manager who was expected to testify at trial.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion for a protective order and granted the motion to compel. The court ordered Kim to be available for an oral deposition within 21 days and set a deadline for summary-judgment motions.
The detailed version
- Hong v. Mommy's Jamaican Market Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-09612
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 14, 2022
Background
The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) for a protective order barring the oral deposition of Defendant Myong Soo Kim. The plaintiff cross-moved to compel Kim’s oral deposition. The defendants argued that an oral deposition would impose an undue physical burden on Kim and that the plaintiff should instead be limited to a deposition by written questions under Rule 31.
The defendants relied on a letter from Kim’s treating physician. The physician advised against proceedings requiring Kim to sit upright or walk for more than 60 consecutive minutes, or to experience mental or physical stress for an extended period.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that completely prohibiting an oral deposition is unusual and requires good cause. The party seeking that protection must show a clearly defined, specific, and serious injury that would occur without the order; general allegations of harm are not enough.
The court held that the defendants had not met that burden. It found that the physician’s note did not establish that Kim could not sit for an oral deposition or that the deposition would harm him. The court also stated that ordinary accommodations, including breaks every hour, would address the physician’s concerns. The court noted that Kim was a highly relevant witness, was alleged to have been a co-owner and co-manager of Mommy’s Jamaican Market Corp., and was expected to testify live at trial. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to test Kim’s memory and determine whether his testimony supported the defendants’ defenses or the plaintiff’s claims.
Ruling
The court denied the defendants’ motion for a protective order and granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel. It ordered that Kim be made available for an oral deposition within 21 days of the order. The court also found good cause to modify the case-management plan and ordered that summary-judgment motions be filed within 35 days. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at Docket Nos. 59, 60, 62, and 63.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.