Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 29, 2023

Rhee v. Sante Ventures

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:21-cv-04283
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rhee v. Sante Ventures, Judge Liman barred undisclosed case-in-chief documents but allowed identified witnesses to testify without depositions.

Who this affects

Youngjoo Rhee and Sante Ventures, particularly their use of documents and witnesses at trial.

What happened

In Rhee v. Sante Ventures, Youngjoo Rhee asked the court to prevent Sante Ventures from introducing documents that had not been produced during discovery or calling witnesses who had not been deposed.

Sante Ventures agreed that neither side should use undisclosed documents in its main presentation at trial, but opposed barring witnesses merely because they had not been deposed. The opinion states that the witnesses at issue had been identified in the parties’ required disclosures, and that discovery deadlines had passed.

The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that neither side could use documents not produced in discovery in its case-in-chief, but denied the request to prevent Sante Ventures from calling witnesses who had not been deposed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rhee v. Sante Ventures · No. 1:21-cv-04283
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Aug. 29, 2023

Background

Youngjoo Rhee moved before trial to prevent Sante Ventures from offering documents that had not been produced in discovery and from calling witnesses who had not been deposed. Trial was scheduled for September 19, 2023.

Sante Ventures did not oppose barring either side from offering documents that were not produced in discovery. It opposed barring witnesses who had not been deposed.

Court’s Analysis

The court discussed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1), which requires parties to identify individuals likely to have discoverable information, and Rule 37(c)(1), which permits sanctions for failing to make required disclosures. The court noted that excluding evidence is a harsh remedy generally reserved for rare situations.

Sante Ventures identified four potential trial witnesses in the joint pretrial order: Kevin Lalande, Jason Brandt, Brooke Jones, and Alfred Macdaniel. Rhee had deposed Lalande and Brandt. Sante Ventures had identified all four people in its initial disclosures, served on April 7, 2022. Macdaniel also appeared in Rhee’s responses to Sante Ventures’s first set of interrogatories.

The court found no basis to bar the identified witnesses from testifying simply because Jones and Macdaniel had not been deposed. The court noted that the case-management plan allowed the parties until July 21, 2022, to complete fact discovery and depositions, and that both parties later represented that they did not anticipate conducting further discovery.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part Rhee’s motion. Neither side may offer, in its case-in-chief, documents that were not produced in discovery. The motion was denied to the extent it sought to prevent Sante Ventures from calling trial witnesses who had not been deposed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.