Amimon, Inc. v. Shenzhen Hollyland Tech Co. Ltd
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-09170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Amimon v. Shenzhen Hollyland, Judge Ramos set options for disputed corporate depositions and denied defendants’ request for expense compensation.
Amimon, Inc., Amimon Ltd., Shenzhen Hollyland Tech Co. Ltd, and EC Pro Video Systems Inc., particularly their preparations for the scheduled corporate depositions.
What happened
In Amimon, Inc. v. Shenzhen Hollyland Tech Co. Ltd., the defendants asked to postpone depositions in which Amimon had designated corporate witnesses to testify about listed topics. The depositions were scheduled for March 25 and 26, 2024.
The defendants said Amimon had made general objections to several topics and refused to provide more detail. Amimon responded that the defendants had long known about its objections, had not tried to narrow the topics, and had not followed Amimon’s suggestions for doing so. The court said both sides were responsible for waiting until shortly before the depositions to raise the dispute.
Judge Ramos ruled that Amimon could proceed with the depositions as scheduled, but then the depositions would cover all topics in the notice. Alternatively, Amimon could postpone them and ask for a protective order if the parties could not narrow the topics. The judge denied the defendants’ request for compensation because they did not explain what expenses they had incurred.
The detailed version
- Amimon, Inc. v. Shenzhen Hollyland Tech Co. Ltd · No. 1:20-cv-09170
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 22, 2024
Background
Amimon, Inc. and Amimon Ltd. are the plaintiffs, and Shenzhen Hollyland Tech Co. Ltd and EC Pro Video Systems Inc. are the defendants. The defendants filed a letter asking the court to postpone Rule 30(b)(6) depositions scheduled for March 25 and 26, 2024. A Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is a deposition in which an organization designates one or more people to testify about specified topics.
Parties’ Positions
The defendants said Amimon had made boilerplate, or general, objections to several topics in the deposition notice and had refused to provide more detailed objections. They asked to postpone the depositions and to receive compensation for expenses allegedly caused by the obstructed depositions.
Amimon responded that the defendants had long been aware of its objections but had not tried to narrow the deposition topics. Amimon also said it had suggested ways to narrow the topics and that the defendants had not done so.
Court’s Analysis
The court said both sides were responsible for failing to address the issue until the eve of the depositions. The court relied on authority stating that a party who believes a Rule 30(b)(6) notice is flawed may not simply rely on its objections; it must ask for a protective order. The court found that Amimon had not done so.
Ruling
The court did not expressly grant or deny the request to postpone the depositions. Instead, it provided two alternatives: Amimon could proceed with the depositions as scheduled, in which case they would cover the full scope of the topics in the notice; or Amimon could postpone the depositions and move for a protective order if the parties could not narrow the notice.
The court DENIED the defendants’ request for compensation because the defendants had not explained what expenses they incurred. The court also reminded the parties that cooperation and practical use of court procedures are important in resolving discovery disputes. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 297.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.