Tomassetti v. Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-02587
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tomassetti v. Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC, Judge Briccetti allowed plaintiffs to question the defendant’s CEO in writing instead of requiring an oral deposition.
The plaintiffs, Adelmo Tomassetti and Rose Tomassetti, may obtain limited written deposition testimony from the defendant’s CEO, Ryan Moss; Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC, must respond through Moss within the specified limits.
What happened
In Tomassetti v. Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC, the plaintiffs sought to depose the defendant’s CEO, Ryan Moss, orally. The defendant opposed that request and sought protection from the deposition.
The court found Moss’s testimony might be relevant, but the plaintiffs had not shown that he had unique knowledge justifying the burden and disruption of an oral deposition. The court therefore allowed the plaintiffs to serve up to 20 written questions about the case’s claims and defenses.
Moss must respond within 21 days and may raise objections allowed for interrogatories, except one based on Local Civil Rule 33.3. The court also allowed the plaintiffs to seek an oral deposition later if his answers provide a valid basis. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti terminated both motions.
The detailed version
- Tomassetti v. Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-02587
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 6, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs’ counsel requested an informal conference about an anticipated motion to compel the deposition of the defendant’s CEO, Ryan Moss. The defendant’s counsel requested a conference about a possible motion for a protective order to cancel the deposition notice. Moss submitted an affidavit supporting the defendant’s position.
The court concluded that no pre-motion conference or additional briefing was necessary. Under the discovery rules, parties may obtain relevant and proportional nonprivileged information, but a court may limit discovery to protect against annoyance, oppression, undue burden, or expense. One possible limitation is requiring a different discovery method.
Court’s Analysis
The plaintiffs argued that Moss might have relevant knowledge because other testimony described him as a hands-on CEO who may have decided to change the ladder feet involved in the case. They also noted that Moss had appeared in the defendant’s promotional videos discussing ladder safety and design.
The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown Moss possessed unique knowledge that would justify requiring him to sit for an oral deposition. Moss stated that he had no unique personal knowledge relevant to the case and that his testimony would be duplicative of testimony already given by other employees. However, the court also declined to block all discovery from Moss based only on his unchallenged statement that he lacked unique knowledge.
Ruling
The court permitted the plaintiffs to depose Moss by written questions. The plaintiffs may serve up to 20 questions, including all discrete subparts, concerning the claims and defenses. Moss must respond within 21 days and may assert any objection available in response to an interrogatory, except an objection based on Local Civil Rule 33.3.
The order is without prejudice to a later application to depose Moss orally if his written answers show a valid basis for an oral examination. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motions filed as Documents 28 and 34.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.