Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-07541
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Judge Cave denied Cengage’s motion without prejudice to compel more deposition testimony from nonparty Juli Saitz.
Cengage Learning, Inc., Bernstein and the other plaintiffs, and nonparty witness Juli Saitz.
What happened
In Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Cengage asked the court to require nonparty witness Juli Saitz to provide additional deposition testimony. Plaintiffs had engaged Saitz as a non-testifying expert.
The court said Cengage could have asked Saitz about information she learned or opinions she formed before Plaintiffs engaged her. But Cengage had an opportunity to ask those questions during her deposition and did not show why it failed to do so. Cengage also did not show that any additional information would matter to class certification.
The court denied Cengage’s motion without prejudice, meaning Cengage may renew it at an appropriate time if the information is relevant to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. Judge Sarah L. Cave also ordered the parties to obtain and file a transcript of the conference.
The detailed version
- Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-07541
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 4, 2022
Background
Cengage moved to compel further deposition testimony from nonparty witness Juli Saitz. Plaintiffs had engaged Saitz as a non-testifying expert. The motion concerned questions about information Saitz acquired or opinions she formed before Plaintiffs engaged her.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D) entitled Cengage to ask Saitz about that pre-engagement information and those opinions. However, Cengage had an opportunity to ask such questions during Saitz’s deposition. Cengage did not demonstrate why, despite Plaintiffs’ counsel’s objections, it had failed to formulate questions seeking the information to which it was entitled.
The court also found that Cengage had not shown that any additional information or opinions would be relevant to class certification. The court stated that Cengage could renew the motion at the appropriate time if it determined that the information was relevant to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.
Disposition
The court denied Cengage’s motion to compel without prejudice. The order also required the parties to request a transcript of the November 4, 2022 conference and file it on the docket. The request was due by November 7, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.