Hegazy v. The Halal Guys, Inc.
- Loretta Preska
- 1:22-cv-01880
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hegazy v. The Halal Guys, Judge Schofield ordered defendants to respond to plaintiffs’ request about remote and compelled depositions.
The plaintiffs seeking remote depositions and the defendants responding to the discovery requests, including Mohamed Abouelenein.
What happened
In Hegazy v. The Halal Guys, the plaintiffs asked to hold four depositions remotely because those plaintiffs lived outside the New York metropolitan area and would face travel, health, and expense concerns. They also sought to depose Mohamed Abouelenein, an owner and party whom they said had relevant knowledge about the claims.
The plaintiffs said they had offered accommodations for Mr. Abouelenein’s health concerns, including a remote deposition lasting no more than three hours with breaks every half hour. They argued that his testimony was relevant because he had managed the companies during part of the period covered by their New York labor-law claims.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the defendants to file a response of no more than three pages by January 4, 2023. The text does not show a final ruling on whether the depositions would be conducted remotely or whether Mr. Abouelenein would be compelled to testify.
The detailed version
- Hegazy v. The Halal Guys, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01880
- Loretta Preska
- Dec. 23, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a letter requesting a pre-motion conference before filing a discovery motion. The letter raised two issues: whether four named plaintiffs who lived outside the New York metropolitan area could be deposed remotely, and whether defendant Mohamed Abouelenein could be ordered to appear for a deposition.
The letter stated that seven named plaintiffs who lived in or near New York City had already been deposed in person. The plaintiffs argued that remote depositions for the other four plaintiffs would avoid travel during a period when COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus cases were increasing, as well as additional lost work time and travel and lodging expenses. Counsel also stated that each plaintiff had a computer or tablet, a quiet room, and a reliable internet connection.
Deposition of Mohamed Abouelenein
The plaintiffs described Mr. Abouelenein as an owner and founder of the corporate defendants who directly managed the companies during part of the period covered by the plaintiffs’ New York Labor Law claims. The letter stated that his son, Ahmed Abouelenein, became the current chief executive officer of the corporate defendants, but that the transition was not completed until 2017. It also stated that Mr. Abouelenein led employee meetings in 2017 concerning changes to employee pay and that some plaintiffs testified that he paid them.
The defendants had provided a doctor’s note stating that Mr. Abouelenein suffered from forgetfulness and could not walk or sit for more than half an hour. The plaintiffs said they had proposed a remote deposition limited to three hours of questions, with breaks of whatever length he needed every half hour, and had offered to discuss other accommodations. According to the letter, the defendants said Mr. Abouelenein would not appear unless ordered by the court.
The letter argued that a deposition prohibition is unusual and that the defendants had not shown the specific and serious harm required for a protective order preventing the deposition. It asked that Mr. Abouelenein be deposed with appropriate accommodations.
Court action
The court ordered the defendants to file a response, no longer than three pages, by January 4, 2023. The text provided does not state that the court granted or denied either requested discovery measure, and it does not contain a final ruling on the requested remote depositions or on compelling Mr. Abouelenein’s deposition. The document is signed by Lorna G. Schofield.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.