Vallair Solutions SARL v. 321 Precision Conversions LLC
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-07507
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vallair Solutions SARL v. 321 Precision Conversions LLC, Judge Lehrburger denied ATSG and CAM’s request to use written questions for Joseph C. Hete’s deposition.
The ruling affected Vallair Solutions SARL’s ability to question Joseph C. Hete and the burden imposed on Hete, ATSG, and CAM in arranging and conducting the deposition.
What happened
In Vallair Solutions SARL v. 321 Precision Conversions LLC, Vallair sought to depose Joseph C. Hete after earlier depositions had not answered questions about his documents and involvement in pricing and other decisions.
Third parties Air Transport Services Group, Inc. and Cargo Aircraft Management, Inc. asked for a protective order requiring the deposition to use written questions instead of live questioning. They argued that Hete was a high-ranking corporate official who was not a party and that written questions would reduce the burden and prevent harassment.
The court denied the request because ATSG and CAM had not proposed this alternative in their earlier request to cancel the deposition, and because written questions would be inadequate if follow-up questions were needed. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger therefore did not change the prior order requiring Hete to appear for a deposition.
The detailed version
- Vallair Solutions SARL v. 321 Precision Conversions LLC · No. 1:21-cv-07507
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 11, 2023
Background
Vallair sought to depose Joseph C. Hete. The opinion states that Hete was chairman of the board of Air Transport Services Group, Inc. (ATSG) and ATSG’s former chief executive officer. Hete was a non-party witness.
The court had previously considered the deposition issue on March 10 and July 5, 2023, but found it premature because depositions of 321 Precision Conversions LLC’s witnesses and ATSG’s and Cargo Aircraft Management, Inc.’s Rule 30(b)(6) representatives had not been completed. After those depositions were completed, Vallair moved to compel Hete’s deposition. ATSG and CAM opposed that request and separately asked the court to quash Vallair’s subpoena. On October 3, 2023, the court granted Vallair’s motion to compel, denied ATSG and CAM’s motion to quash, and ordered ATSG and CAM to produce Hete for deposition.
Request for Written Questions
ATSG and CAM then asked for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They requested that Hete’s deposition be conducted through written questions under Rule 31 rather than through live questioning. They argued that this method would minimize the burden on Hete and prevent the deposition from being used for harassment.
Vallair identified several subjects for the deposition, including Hete’s alleged role in forming the joint venture, pricing offered to customers, discussions about Vallair’s role as a launch customer, and the configuration of the conformity aircraft. ATSG and CAM disagreed with Vallair’s characterization of the earlier deposition testimony and Hete’s involvement, but the court noted that the subjects and potentially relevant emails were limited.
Ruling
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied ATSG and CAM’s request. The order states that they had not proposed written questions in the earlier correspondence that led to the order denying their motion to quash. It also states that written questions would be inadequate because follow-up questions would likely be needed. The ruling therefore left in place the requirement that Hete be produced for a deposition, without changing it to a deposition conducted by written questions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.