American Lecithin Company v. Rebmann
- Willis
- 1:12-cv-00929
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In American Lecithin v. Rebmann, Judge Willis denied a premature deposition-extension request and directed that the case’s stay be lifted.
Third-party defendants’ counsel, Herbert Rebmann, Carsten “Matthias” Rebmann, and the other parties affected by the case-wide stay and the scheduled deposition.
What happened
In American Lecithin Company v. Rebmann, counsel for the third-party defendants asked to keep Herbert Rebmann’s ordered deposition open in case more time became necessary. Carsten “Matthias” Rebmann opposed the request as premature.
The court denied the request because the deposition had not yet occurred, so it could not determine whether additional time would be needed or how much. The court said counsel could renew the request after the deposition, but first required the parties to discuss the issue and the proposed additional time. The court also directed that the sixty-day stay be lifted because Carsten “Matthias” Rebmann had obtained new counsel.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued the order on July 12, 2023. The Clerk was asked to close the motion at Docket No. 343 and lift the stay.
The detailed version
- American Lecithin Company v. Rebmann · No. 1:12-cv-00929
- Willis
- July 12, 2023
Background
The court had ordered a deposition of third-party defendant Herbert Rebmann. On July 11, 2023, counsel for the third-party defendants asked that the deposition be held subject to a possible continued date, effectively seeking additional deposition time if needed. Defendant and third-party plaintiff Carsten “Matthias” Rebmann opposed the request as premature.
The order also addressed a sixty-day stay that the court had granted on May 10, 2022, so Carsten “Matthias” Rebmann could obtain new counsel. The order states that the sixty days had expired and that he had new counsel.
Ruling
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d) generally provides a seven-hour deposition limit, which the court may extend for good cause. Because Herbert Rebmann’s deposition had not yet occurred, the court could not determine the scope of any needed extension. The court therefore denied the request as premature.
The court permitted counsel for the third-party defendants to renew the request after the scheduled deposition. Before doing so, the parties were directed to meet and confer about whether additional time was needed and the proposed scope of any enlargement. The court also requested that the Clerk close the motion at Docket No. 343 and lift the stay on the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.