United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
MICHAEL A. TELESCA United States District Judge
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.
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.
reasons discussed herein, Global's motion is granted.
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)
General Legal Principles and Burdens of Proof
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
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.”)).
Global Fulfilled Its Burden ...