Spiegler v. Mish Mish Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-08774
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Spiegler v. Mish Mish, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein ordered more information before deciding whether Gal Spiegler’s deposition would occur in person or by video.
Gal Spiegler and the defendants, because the order governs the process for deciding where and how Spiegler’s deposition will occur.
What happened
In Spiegler v. Mish Mish Inc., the defendants wanted Gal Spiegler’s deposition to take place in person in the Southern District of New York, while Spiegler requested a video deposition.
The court explained that plaintiffs generally must make themselves available for depositions in the district where they filed suit, but exceptions may apply when travel would cause hardship. The court also noted that this principle may carry less weight when a plaintiff had no choice of forum.
The court did not decide the deposition’s location because the parties had not provided enough information about Spiegler’s travel burden or the defendants’ possible harm from a video deposition. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein directed the parties to confer again and set procedures for a further request if they could not agree.
The detailed version
- Spiegler v. Mish Mish Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08774
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 6, 2024
Issue
The parties asked the court to resolve where Gal Spiegler’s deposition should occur. The defendants requested an in-person deposition in the Southern District of New York. Spiegler requested that the deposition take place by video.
Legal standard
The court explained that the general rule is that a plaintiff who selects the court where the lawsuit is filed must generally make themselves available for examination there. The rule is not absolute, however. A court may consider whether the plaintiff has shown good cause, including hardship from traveling, and must balance that hardship against any prejudice to the defendants.
The court also stated that the usual rule carries less weight when the plaintiff had no meaningful choice of forum. The opinion said that circumstance appeared to apply because the defendants had not identified another judicial district or forum where Spiegler could have filed the lawsuit, particularly one that would have been more convenient for the defendants.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the parties’ letters did not provide enough facts to balance the competing concerns. Spiegler’s claimed hardship appeared inconsistent with the defendants’ assertion that Spiegler had voluntarily traveled to the United States several weeks earlier. At the same time, the defendants did not explain what prejudice they would suffer if the deposition were conducted by video.
Because the record was insufficient, the court did not decide whether the deposition would be held in person or by video.
Order
The parties were directed to confer again to determine whether they could reach an agreement, including a possible agreement allowing the defendants to depose Spiegler by video at Spiegler’s expense. If no agreement was reached, Spiegler was directed to file by March 13, 2024, a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) for an order permitting a video deposition. The request had to include a sworn statement from Spiegler explaining the hardship of appearing in person and responding to the defendants’ recent contentions. The defendants could respond within three business days, with a clear explanation of any claimed prejudice, and Spiegler could reply within one business day after that response.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.