United States v. Buff
- Willis
- 1:19-cv-05549
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In United States v. Buff, Judge Willis denied reconsideration, leaving intact an order compelling Carolyn Buff’s deposition under governing discovery law.
Carolyn Buff, whose deposition remained compelled, and the United States, which had obtained the earlier discovery order.
What happened
United States v. Buff concerned Carolyn Buff’s request to reconsider an earlier order compelling her deposition. She argued that the order improperly extended the court’s power into a foreign jurisdiction and raised concerns about national sovereignty.
The court explained that reconsideration is appropriate only for a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. Buff identified no change in law or new evidence, and the court found that its reliance on the controlling Supreme Court decision about obtaining evidence abroad was proper. The court also said the rest of her motion repeated arguments already resolved.
Judge Willis denied Buff’s motion for reconsideration. The earlier order compelling her deposition therefore remained in place.
The detailed version
- United States v. Buff · No. 1:19-cv-05549
- Willis
- Apr. 27, 2023
Background
On November 2, 2022, Carolyn Buff moved for reconsideration of the court’s October 20, 2022 order granting the United States’ motion to compel. That earlier order required Buff to give a deposition. The parties submitted briefing on the reconsideration motion.
Legal standard
The court stated that reconsideration should be granted only if the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Court’s analysis
Buff did not argue that controlling law had changed or that new evidence was available. Instead, she challenged the court’s use of the Supreme Court’s decision in Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. That decision held that using the Hague Convention’s procedures for obtaining evidence abroad is optional. Buff also raised concerns about judicial overreach and foreign sovereignty.
The court acknowledged those concerns but held that Aérospatiale’s majority opinion remained controlling law. It concluded that its reliance on that decision when granting the motion to compel was supported by valid law. The court further found that the rest of Buff’s motion presented no new arguments or facts and instead attempted to relitigate issues already decided. The court noted that district courts have broad discretion to manage pretrial discovery and found no reason to change its earlier order compelling Buff’s deposition.
Disposition
Judge Willis denied the motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 135. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.