Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-09193
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Monterey Bay Military Housing v. Ambac Assurance, Magistrate Judge Cave denied plaintiffs’ request for an in-person deposition.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs, the Jefferies defendants, and Richard Handler: Mr. Handler’s deposition may proceed remotely rather than in person.
What happened
In Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, the plaintiffs asked the court to require Richard Handler to attend an in-person deposition.
The Jefferies defendants argued that the deposition should be remote because the plaintiffs had requested remote depositions for several of their own witnesses. The plaintiffs raised concerns about COVID-19 exposure and offered safety measures, but they did not show how a remote deposition would harm them.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the request and ruled that Mr. Handler’s deposition could proceed remotely. The court directed the clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-09193
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 2, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs filed a letter-motion asking the court to compel Richard Handler to appear for an in-person deposition. The request was directed at the Jefferies defendants: Jefferies Mortgage Finance, Inc., Jefferies & Co., Inc., Jefferies LLC, and Jefferies Group LLC.
The court referred to factual background in earlier decisions and did not repeat it in this opinion. The dispute addressed only the format of Mr. Handler’s deposition.
Arguments
The Jefferies defendants argued that Mr. Handler’s deposition should be remote because the plaintiffs had requested remote depositions for several of their own witnesses. They maintained that the plaintiffs had used the advantages of remote depositions and should not deny the same option to Mr. Handler and the Jefferies defendants.
The plaintiffs cited Mr. Handler’s concerns about possible COVID-19 exposure. They offered to work with the Jefferies defendants on safety measures for an in-person deposition, including using a large conference room, limiting the number of people present, social distancing, and requiring masks for everyone except the witness. The response stated that lawyers in the case had tested positive for COVID-19 shortly after at least two depositions.
Court’s Analysis
The court agreed with the Jefferies defendants. It reasoned that what was manageable for one side should also be available to the other, and therefore Mr. Handler and the Jefferies defendants were entitled to have his deposition proceed remotely.
The court also found that the plaintiffs had not shown that an in-person deposition was necessary. It noted that remote depositions had become common and that the plaintiffs’ claim that they would be prejudiced was conclusory. The court cited decisions recognizing that in-person depositions can create greater COVID-19 transmission risks and that a party has no general right to conduct a deposition in person.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ letter-motion to compel an in-person deposition. The clerk was directed to close ECF No. 621. The opinion was signed by Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.