Amimon, Inc. v. Shenzhen Hollyland Tech Co. Ltd
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-09170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Amimon v. Shenzhen Hollyland, Judge Ramos ordered Amimon to respond by September 18 to defendants’ deposition-location letter.
Amimon, Inc. and Amimon LTD, and the defendants, in connection with the locations and scheduling of depositions.
What happened
In Amimon, Inc. and Amimon LTD v. Shenzhen Hollyland Tech Co. et al., the defendants asked the court to require depositions of Amimon’s officers or employees to take place in New York, where the lawsuit was filed. The defendants said Amimon instead scheduled depositions in California and Israel.
The defendants argued that a plaintiff generally should be prepared to be deposed in the forum it chose. They asked the court to intervene because discovery was scheduled to end on October 31, 2023. The opinion does not state that the court decided where the depositions must occur.
Judge Ramos ordered Amimon to respond to the defendants’ letter by September 18, 2023. The text provided does not show any further ruling on the deposition dispute.
The detailed version
- Amimon, Inc. v. Shenzhen Hollyland Tech Co. Ltd · No. 1:20-cv-09170
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 15, 2023
Background
The defendants noticed depositions of two Amimon officers or employees and stated that the notices set the depositions for New York. According to the defendants’ letter, the notices were sent on August 15 and August 24, 2023, with deposition dates of September 15 and September 22, 2023. Amimon said those dates did not work and later provided or proposed different dates and locations.
Amimon identified an October 27 deposition for Hollyland, an October 25 deposition for Andrew Wu, and a week during October 16–20 for Mr. Agiv in California. It also said that it was coordinating a deposition for Mr. Kanonich in Israel. The defendants stated that the depositions of Amimon’s officers or employees had therefore been unilaterally moved outside New York. They asked the court to order those depositions to occur in New York, the district where the lawsuit was filed.
Parties’ positions
The defendants argued that a plaintiff who chooses a forum generally should be prepared to be deposed there, absent compelling circumstances. They said Amimon had not identified hardship or other compelling circumstances and had not cooperated in arranging a discussion about the deposition locations.
Amimon’s counsel stated that they were unaware of a rule supporting the defendants’ position. Counsel also said that, if Hollyland’s designee and representative agreed to be deposed in New York, Amimon could reconsider the locations for Amimon’s depositions.
Court action
The order states: “Amimon shall respond to the defendants’ letter by Monday, September 18, 2023.” Judge Edgardo Ramos marked the order “SO ORDERED” and dated it September 15, 2023.
The text provided does not state that the court granted or denied the defendants’ request to require New York depositions. It is a discovery-related procedural order directing a response rather than a decision on the underlying lawsuit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.