Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Albino v. Global Equipment USA, Ltd.

United States District Court, W.D. New York

July 24, 2017

ALEXANDER ALBINO, Plaintiff,
v.
GLOBAL EQUIPMENT USA, LTD., Defendant. GLOBAL EQUIPMENT USA, LTD., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
H. P. NEUN COMPANY, INC., ISOWA AMERICA, INC. and ISOWA CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendants.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Following this Court's February 28, 2017, Decision and Order, the parties have been conducting jurisdictional discovery. Defendant and third-party plaintiff Global Equipment USA, LTD. (“Global”) served, inter alia, deposition notices on third-party defendants ISOWA Corp. (“IC”) and ISOWA America, Inc. (“IAI”). After IC and IAI objected to the notices as overbroad, Global sent revised notices, which IC and IAI moved to quash. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman Judge Feldman heard oral argument on the motion to quash and resolved most of the parties' disputes on the record.

         Following the parties' submission of post-argument briefing on the outstanding issues, Judge Feldman issued an Order on June 28, 2017 (Dkt #107) (“the Discovery Order”), delineating the scope of the upcoming deposition of IC/IAI's corporate representative. Global then filed a motion to rescind, in part, the Discovery Order. Specifically, Global objects to the following restriction in the Discovery Order:

Global may depose IC/IAI's representative on the topic of “jurisdiction pursuant to [New York Civil Practice Law and Rules] § 302(a), ” New York's long-arm jurisdiction statute, which will include IC/IAI's respective business and course of conduct in New York prior to the accident at issue in this case. . . .

(Dkt #107, p. 2 of 4) (emphasis in original). Global contends that IC's and IAI's contacts with HP Neun in New York subsequent to the accident are relevant to show that jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute, New York Civil Practice Law and Rule (“C.P.L.R.”) § 302(a), is proper. IC and IAI filed a joint memorandum of law in opposition (Dkt #111) to Global's motion, and Global filed a reply (Dkt #113). Global also moved for an expedited hearing on the motion to rescind, since the deposition at issue is to be held on July 27, 2017, at the U.S. Consulate in Osaka, Japan. This Court granted the request.

         For the reasons discussed herein, Global's motion is granted.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A district judge may review, and set aside, a magistrate judge's decision on a non-dispositive matter such as a discovery issue if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(A) et seq.

         DISCUSSION

         I. General Legal Principles and Burdens of Proof

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”) allow examination of a deponent concerning “any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). Relevance “has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978); see also Maresco v. Evans Chemetics, Div. of W.R. Grace & Co., 964 F.2d 106, 114 (2d Cir. 1992) (“[T]he scope of discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) is very broad. . . .”) (citations omitted).

         Generally, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 30(a)(1), “any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party. . . .” When a party subpoenas a corporation pursuant to F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6), the notice of deposition “must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination” of the individual designated to testify on behalf of the corporation. “The party issuing the subpoena must demonstrate that the information sought is relevant and material to the allegations and claims at issue in the proceedings.” Night Hawk Ltd. v. Briarpatch Ltd, LP, 03 Civ. 1382(RWS), 2003 WL 23018833 at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) (citing Salvatore Studios Int'l v. Mako's Inc., 01 Civ. 4430(BSJ)(DF), 2001 WL 913945 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2001) (“Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure restricts discovery to matters relevant to the claims and defenses of the parties. Here, the burden is on Mako's [who issued the subpoena] to demonstrate relevance.”)).

         II. Global Fulfilled Its Burden ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.