Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-10861
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Judge Parker overruled Defendant’s objection and allowed only a voluntary deposition under specified conditions.
Grant Johnson, Esports Entertainment Group, Inc., and third-party witness John Brackens were affected by the discovery ruling; the withdrawn subpoena concerning Alexander Calaway was not further addressed.
What happened
In Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Inc., Grant Johnson withdrew a document subpoena directed to Alexander Calaway, making that dispute moot. The court therefore addressed Esports Entertainment Group’s objection to a deposition subpoena for John Brackens.
The court ruled that Esports Entertainment Group could not challenge the subpoena because it had not claimed a privilege or ownership interest in the information sought. The court also clarified that its earlier denial of Johnson’s request for Brackens’ emails was without prejudice, meaning Johnson could renew that request after explaining why the emails would provide new, relevant, and proportionate information.
Judge Katharine H. Parker further ruled that the subpoena was unenforceable because it did not allow a reasonable time for compliance and did not meet the service requirements of Rule 45 and 28 U.S.C. § 1783. The court nevertheless allowed a voluntary Zoom deposition before the September 26, 2023 fact-discovery deadline, required the parties and witness to agree on a reasonable date, and prohibited further third-party subpoenas.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10861
- Katharine Parker
- Sept. 6, 2023
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ letters about discovery disputes. Johnson withdrew a document subpoena directed to Alexander Calaway, so the dispute concerning that subpoena was moot. The remaining issue concerned Esports Entertainment Group’s objection to a deposition subpoena for John Brackens.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Esports Entertainment Group lacked standing—the legal ability to challenge the subpoena—because it had not asserted a privilege or a proprietary interest in the information sought from Brackens. The court therefore overruled the defendant’s objection.
The court also explained that its prior ruling concerning Brackens’ emails had not permanently barred discovery of those emails. The court had previously denied Johnson’s request because producing the emails was disproportionate to the needs of the case, but that denial was without prejudice. Johnson could renew the request if later discovery showed that the emails would contain information that was new, relevant, and proportional to the needs of the case. Before any renewed production could be required, Johnson had to explain why the emails met those requirements.
The court separately found that the deposition subpoena was not enforceable. It did not provide a reasonable time for compliance and did not comply with Rule 45 or 28 U.S.C. § 1783 regarding how and on whom it could be served. Even so, the court allowed the deposition to proceed voluntarily by Zoom if Brackens agreed to testify before the September 26, 2023 fact-discovery deadline. The parties and Brackens were directed to meet and confer about a reasonable date, and the court prohibited any further third-party subpoenas.
Disposition
The court resolved the issues in the letter motion at ECF No. 84 and requested that the Clerk close that letter motion. The court overruled Esports Entertainment Group’s objection, found the subpoena unenforceable, and allowed only a voluntary deposition under the stated conditions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.