James v. Pernod Ricard USA, LLC
- Denise Cote
- 1:21-cv-10795
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In James v. Pernod Ricard USA, LLC, Judge Cote received James’s opposition to a late deposition notice; the letter asks that the deposition not proceed after discovery closes.
Michele James and Pernod Ricard USA, LLC, because the dispute concerns whether the defendant may depose James after the fact-discovery deadline.
What happened
James v. Pernod Ricard USA, LLC concerns a dispute over when Pernod Ricard could depose Michele James. The discovery deadline was November 18, 2022, and the defendant served a deposition notice around 4:30 p.m. on November 14 for a deposition four days later.
James’s attorneys argued that four days was not reasonable written notice under the federal discovery rules. They also disputed the defendant’s account of the earlier scheduling efforts and asked the court not to allow the deposition after discovery closed.
The letter was addressed to Judge Denise Cote. The provided text is James’s attorney letter responding to the defendant’s request for a conference, not a court ruling, so it does not show that Judge Cote granted or denied any request.
The detailed version
- James v. Pernod Ricard USA, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-10795
- Denise Cote
- Nov. 15, 2022
Document and procedural posture
The provided document is a November 15, 2022 letter from attorneys representing Michele James to Judge Denise Cote. It responds to Pernod Ricard USA, LLC’s request for a conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2 concerning a discovery dispute. The text does not include a court order or state that the court ruled on the request.
Discovery dispute
The dispute concerns the timing of James’s deposition. The letter states that, after the court denied a motion to extend discovery, the defendant served a deposition notice at about 4:30 p.m. on November 14, 2022, scheduling the deposition for November 18, 2022, the final day of fact discovery. James’s attorneys argue that this provided only four days’ notice and was not “reasonable written notice” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1).
The letter also states that the defendant had previously sent a deposition notice for September 1, 2022, but did not proceed with the deposition then. According to James’s attorneys, the defendant instead pursued alleged deficiencies in James’s written discovery responses before later seeking to schedule the deposition. The letter further says that James joined an earlier application because counsel represented that settlement discussions were continuing, but James later learned that the defendant had taken a position before a magistrate judge that would end those discussions.
Requested action and disposition
James’s attorneys argue that the defendant had nearly six months to schedule the deposition before the discovery deadline and that the defendant’s claimed prejudice resulted from its own delay. They ask Judge Cote not to permit the deposition after discovery closes. The provided text does not state how Judge Cote ruled on the request or whether the deposition occurred.
Classification note
Because the provided text is a party submission rather than a ruling, it is classified as other.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.