Brian Joseph Gref v. American International Industries
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-05589
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Gref v. American International Industries: Judge Figueredo ordered a response deadline on a discovery letter seeking defense-expert deposition dates.
Brian Gref and the defendants whose expert depositions were the subject of the discovery dispute, including American International Industries, Shulton, Inc., and Colgate-Palmolive Company as described in the letter.
What happened
In Brian Joseph Gref v. American International Industries, Brian Gref asked the court to intervene in a dispute over scheduling depositions of the defendants’ expert witnesses. Gref’s lawyer said Gref has mesothelioma and argued that delays could prevent the case from reaching a jury during Gref’s lifetime.
Gref asked the court to require deposition dates by December 23, 2022, for depositions to occur by January 31, 2023. In the alternative, he asked the court to schedule a conference to address the discovery dispute. The letter says the defendants had delayed or canceled several expert depositions and maintained that their experts need not be deposed until Gref’s experts had all been deposed.
Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered that any response to Gref’s letter motion was due by December 21, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. The text provided does not state how the court ultimately ruled on Gref’s requested deposition schedule or conference.
The detailed version
- Brian Joseph Gref v. American International Industries · No. 1:20-cv-05589
- George Daniels
- Dec. 20, 2022
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a letter motion from plaintiff Brian Gref requesting immediate court intervention in a discovery dispute. The letter was submitted under the magistrate judge’s practice rules and was marked “SO ORDERED.” The court ordered that any response be filed by December 21, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.
Discovery dispute
Gref’s counsel asserted that the defendants had refused for about five months to produce their expert witnesses for deposition until depositions of Gref’s experts were completed. The letter states that most of Gref’s expert depositions had occurred, although a request concerning the continuation of Dr. Jacqueline Moline’s deposition remained pending and the parties were discussing a limited continuation of Dr. Longo’s deposition.
The letter identifies multiple defense experts whose depositions had not been scheduled, had not been completed, or had been canceled and not promptly rescheduled. It specifically mentions Mr. Segrave, Dr. Gunter, Dr. Diette, Dr. Feingold, Dr. Attanoos, Dr. Carder, and Dr. Mundt. The letter also describes Colgate-Palmolive Company’s cancellation of Dr. Diette’s deposition, which had been scheduled for December 22, 2022, and states that Dr. Diette was not available again until March 3, 2023.
Plaintiff’s request
Gref asked the court to direct the defendants to provide, by December 23, 2022, deposition dates no later than January 31, 2023, for all defense experts whose depositions had not been completed. Alternatively, Gref asked the court to schedule a conference under Local Rule 37.2.
The letter argued that federal practice does not give either side priority in taking depositions and that depositions should proceed in the order in which they were noticed. These statements are presented as Gref’s arguments in the letter; the provided text does not contain a merits ruling adopting them.
What the court did
Judge Valerie Figueredo set a deadline for responses to the letter motion. The provided text does not state whether the court granted or denied Gref’s request for deposition dates, scheduled a conference, or otherwise resolved the discovery dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.