DIOGUARDI v. Giroski, LLC et al
Filing
193
ORDER REAFFIRMING THAT THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN ROSALES SHALL TAKE PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 12/9/2014. (tr00)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 12‐23354‐CIV‐MARTINEZ/GOODMAN
GIANFRANCO DIOGUARDI,
Plaintiff,
v.
GRISOKI, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER REAFFIRMING THAT THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT
BENJAMIN ROSALES SHALL TAKE PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES
This Cause is before the Undersigned concerning memoranda of law ordered by
this Court following a hearing on November 7, 2014 (the “Hearing”). [ECF No. 162]. At
the Hearing, the Undersigned ordered each party to submit a memorandum of law on
the question of whether Venezuelan law actually requires a Venezuelan national to
receive specific advance approval from the Venezuelan government to make a brief trip
to the United States. On December 5, 2014, Defendant Benjamin Rosales and Plaintiff
Gianfranco Dioguardi submitted their respective briefs. [ECF Nos. 185; 186].
Defendant Benjamin Rosales was ordered to appear in person at the Hearing
[ECF Nos. 85; 142], but instead filed a Renewed Motion to Appear Telephonically late
the evening before the Hearing [ECF No. 157], which the Undersigned rejected [ECF
No. 158]. In the Renewed Motion to Appear Telephonically, Rosales submitted
documentation purportedly from a Venezuelan government official that denied Rosales
the opportunity to exit the country in order to attend the Hearing. [ECF No. 157]. At the
Hearing, counsel for Plaintiff argued that Venezuelan law features no such restrictions
on the movement of its citizens out of the country, absent extraordinary circumstances
such as an individual’s involvement in a criminal case. Defendant’s counsel stood
behind the alleged Venezuelan government document that purported to restrict
Rosales’ movement. The Undersigned thus required the parties to submit the
memoranda of law at issue in this Order.
A related matter at issue during the Hearing was whether Rosales should appear
for an in‐person deposition in the United States. The Court ruled that Rosales must
appear at his deposition in person, in the United States, not via videoconference or
other electronic connection. [ECF No. 162, p. 2]. The Undersigned noted though that
should Rosales’ memorandum sufficiently demonstrate that he is unable to enter the
United States, then the Court would revisit the ruling. [Id.].
Having reviewed the memoranda and attached affidavits, the Undersigned finds
that the materials submitted by Rosales are unpersuasive. At no point in Rosales’ expert
affidavit is it asserted that he is legally not permitted to leave Venezuela, as was the
argument asserted in his Renewed Motion to Appear Telephonically [ECF No. 157].
Rather, the expert opinion that is offered merely presents the Court with foggy notions
of business relationships potentially being disrupted in uncertain ways by unnamed
government officials at unknown levels of the governmental apparatus. [ECF No. 185‐
2
1]. Therefore, the Court’s prior Order [ECF No. 162] requiring Defendant Benjamin
Rosales to appear in person for his deposition remains unchanged. Should Rosales not
appear in person for his scheduled deposition, the Court will enter an Order
recommending that he be held in contempt. In addition, the Court will strike and
disregard any material that Rosales has submitted, or will submit, on the Motion to
Dissolve Writ of Garnishment [ECF No. 74] if he does not appear.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, December 9, 2014.
Copies furnished to:
Honorable Jose E. Martinez
All Counsel of Record
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?