Lebenns v. Frost Productions
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-11155
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Lebenns v. Frost Productions: Judge Willis denied oral argument and granted in part more deposition time, setting Peter Markowitz’s continued deposition at 3.5 hours.
The ruling directly affects Andrew Lebenns’s ability to continue deposing Peter Markowitz and the defendants’ participation in that deposition.
What happened
In Lebenns v. Frost Productions, the parties asked the court to resolve a dispute about continuing Peter Markowitz’s deposition. The dispute concerned whether only two hours remained and whether Andrew Lebenns had a basis for requesting more time.
The court found that the remaining deposition time was two hours under the usual seven-hour limit for a deposition. Lebenns argued that newly produced documents justified additional time; the defendants opposed extending the deposition.
The court denied Lebenns’s request for oral argument and granted in part his request for more deposition time. Judge Jennifer E. Willis found good cause for an extension of 1.5 hours, allowing a total of 3.5 hours for the continuing deposition.
The detailed version
- Lebenns v. Frost Productions · No. 1:21-cv-11155
- Barbara Moses
- May 18, 2023
Background
The parties contacted the court about a discovery dispute involving the continuing deposition of Peter Markowitz. Markowitz’s deposition had lasted approximately five hours on October 12, 2022, before it ended because the court reporter needed to leave. The parties had agreed that the deposition could continue for approximately two more hours.
The court also noted that Lebenns’s written submissions at Docket Nos. 84 and 85 were filed late, but reviewed all submissions. Lebenns requested oral argument and asked the court to extend the time allowed for Markowitz’s continuing deposition.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d) generally limits a deposition to one day of seven hours unless the parties agree otherwise or the court orders otherwise. The court concluded that the seven-hour limit was presumptive and that the defendants’ counsel was not required to separately impose a time limit on the continuing deposition. The court also relied on Lebenns’s counsel’s statement during the deposition reserving the right to complete the deposition because less than seven hours had been used. The court therefore determined that two hours remained under the existing limit.
Lebenns sought additional time based on documents that had previously been unavailable. The court recognized that other courts had found good cause—an adequate reason under the governing rule—for extending a deposition when the witness needed to address voluminous documents. Although the documents relied on by Lebenns had been provided in March 2023 and Lebenns waited more than a month to request additional time, the court also noted that his counsel had expressly said Markowitz would be recalled for questioning about the newly produced documents.
Ruling
The court denied Lebenns’s request for oral argument. It granted in part Lebenns’s request for an enlargement of the deposition time, finding good cause but limiting the enlargement to 1.5 hours. The court ordered Markowitz to sit for a continuing deposition lasting a total of 3.5 hours.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.