Rosendale v. Mr. Cooper Group Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-09263
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rosendale v. Mr. Cooper Group, Judge Davison denied Rosendale’s request for more deposition time and $1,000 in costs.
Donald P. Rosendale and the defendants were affected: the court denied Rosendale’s request for additional deposition time and costs.
What happened
In Rosendale v. Mr. Cooper Group Inc., Donald P. Rosendale, representing himself, asked for 14 more days to question a defense witness and for the defendants to pay $1,000 in deposition costs.
Rosendale said the request was fair because the court had extended the defendants’ deadline for rebuttal expert reports. The defendants opposed the request. The court reviewed the parties’ letters and the deposition transcript.
Judge Paul E. Davison denied both requests. The court said Rosendale had enough opportunity to conduct and challenge the deposition, waited until weeks after the deadline to raise the issue, and did not show that the witness refused to answer questions. The court also said the disputed information generally was not relevant to the case.
The detailed version
- Rosendale v. Mr. Cooper Group Inc. · No. 7:19-cv-09263
- Nelson Roman
- Dec. 13, 2022
Background
At a December 2, 2022 telephone conference, the court extended the defendants’ deadline for submitting rebuttal expert reports. Donald P. Rosendale, who was representing himself, then asked for 14 additional days to question a defendants’ witness and requested that the defendants pay $1,000 in deposition costs. He said the request was in the interest of fairness because the defendants had received more time for their rebuttal reports. The defendants opposed the request.
Rosendale later submitted the transcript of his deposition of the defendants’ witness, Corrie Williams. The opinion says Rosendale’s concern involved questions about Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s withdrawal of an application for mortgage insurance. The court had previously determined that information was generally not relevant to the action.
Court’s reasoning
The court found Rosendale had an adequate opportunity to depose the witness, object to the deposition, and raise deposition issues before the court. It also found that Rosendale waited until weeks after the deadline for deposing non-expert witnesses had passed before requesting additional time. The court contrasted that timing with the defendants’ request, which had been raised before their deadline expired.
After reviewing the transcript, the court did not find that Williams had refused to answer Rosendale’s questions. The court said Williams appeared to have answered to the best of her knowledge and was not required to testify about irrelevant inquiries.
Ruling
The court denied Rosendale’s request for additional time to depose the defendants’ witness and for the defendants to pay deposition costs. Judge Paul E. Davison advised Rosendale that any request for review of the order had to be made within 14 days after service of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.