Rosen v. UBS Financial Services Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-03880
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rosen v. UBS Financial Services, Judge Rochon ruled that two depositions needed no court permission and ordered production of deposition notes.
Emily Rosen, defendants O’Connor and Alight, and the defendants seeking production of Rosen’s deposition notes were directly affected. The order also addressed, without deciding, matters involving Frank Sabia and the case schedule.
What happened
In Rosen v. UBS Financial Services Inc., Emily Rosen asked to depose defendants O’Connor and Alight. The defendants argued those depositions were unnecessary because related testimony had already been given in earlier depositions.
The court found that neither person appeared to have been deposed in this case, so Rosen did not need the court’s permission to take the depositions under the federal rules. The court took no position on reported agreements about dismissing Frank Sabia or using an exhibit binder, and it did not grant the requested expert-disclosure extension.
Judge Rochon also ordered Rosen to promptly, and no later than December 2, 2022, produce all notes she had with her and used to refresh her memory during her deposition. The court terminated Rosen’s discovery letter-motion.
The detailed version
- Rosen v. UBS Financial Services Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03880
- Rochon
- Nov. 29, 2022
Discovery Requests
Emily Rosen asked the court to rule on discovery disputes or hold a discovery conference. She sought permission to depose defendants O’Connor and Alight. The defendants opposed the request, arguing that the relevant testimony had already been provided in earlier depositions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 generally allows a party to depose a person without court permission, subject to specified exceptions. One exception applies when the person has already been deposed in the same case. The parties stated that O’Connor had been deposed in a different action, but the court found that neither O’Connor nor Alight appeared to have been deposed in this case.
Rulings
The court ordered that Rosen did not need the court’s permission to depose O’Connor and Alight, provided the depositions otherwise complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rosen also mentioned alleged agreements concerning the voluntary dismissal of Frank Sabia and an exhibit binder, but she did not ask the court to act on those matters. The court took no position on them. Rosen requested a second extension of the expert-disclosure deadline. The court did not grant that requested extension; instead, it stated that any requested extension must comply with the court’s Individual Rule 1.F., including filing a proposed revised case-management and scheduling order if the extension would affect other dates.
The defendants asked the court to order Rosen to produce all notes she used during her November 2, 2022 deposition. The court stated that it had already ruled during that deposition that Rosen had to produce the notes she had with her and used to refresh her recollection. Judge Cea L. Rochon ordered Rosen to produce any and all such notes promptly and no later than December 2, 2022. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 25.
Classification
This is a procedural order addressing discovery and scheduling matters; it does not decide the parties’ underlying claims. The opinion identifies the judge in its opening as “JENNIFER L. ROCHON,” but the signed order identifies the judge as “CEA L. ROCHON.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.