Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank et al v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al

Filing 316

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION NO. 17 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RESUME THE DEPOSITION OF WARREN KORNFELD for 312 Report and Recommendation: The Court hereby adopts Report and Recommendation No. 17. Plaintiffs' Motion to Resume Mr. Kornfeld's deposition is hereby DENIED without prejudice, as further set forth on this Order. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/29/2011) (ab)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION NO. 17 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RESUlvfE THE DEPOSITION OF WARREN KORNFELD ABC DHABI CO:MMERCIAL BANK, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Together and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 08 Civ. 7508 (SAS) MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC, MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC., MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE LTD., STANDARD AND POOR'S RATINGS SERVICES and THE McGRAW HILL COMPANIES, INC., SHIR,\ A. SCHEINDLIN, UNITED STATES DISTRlCT JUDGE: The Court, having reviewed Report & Recommendation No. 17 of the Special Master (Docket No. 31 2 ), and having received no objections from the Parties, hereby adopts Report and Recommendation No. 17, and further ORDERS: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Resume 1v1r. Kornfeld's deposition is hereby DENIED without prejudice. 2. If Defendants list Mr. Kornfeld as a trial witness, Plaintiffs will be permitted to reopen IvIr. Kornfeld's deposition for no more than three and one-half hours of examination time by Plaintiffs. 3. If Mr. Kornfeld's deposition is reopened, Plaintiffs should avoid retreading ground that was addressed in Mr. Kornfeld's June 28-29, 2011 deposition. However, to the extent 1 Plaintiffs \\';sh to ask questions related to exhibits that were used during or shown to Mr. Kornfeld in his June 28-29, 2011 deposition, Plaintiffs are not prohibited from doing so. 4. The Parties and their counsel are hereby reminded of (1) what conduct, objections and instructions are appropriate at depositions (for both examining and defending counsel), (2) the fact that two-day fact witness depositions should be considered to be the exception in this case, and (3) the Parties previously have been instructed to not "waste time" in the limited number of depositions that remain in this case. 5. In particular, all Parties must heed the Court's May 2011 admonition for the Parties to attempt to complete fact witness depositions in a single day. 6. In addition, the Parties are hereby directed to comply \v'ith the guidance sent forth in the Court's Suggested Rules of Discovery Practice ~'14-6. 7. Further, the Parties are hereby reminded that coaching a witness is strictly prohibited and that, when making an objection, counsel shall state the permissible basis(es) of the objection, such as (1) compound; (2) asked and answered; (3) overbroad/calls for a narrative; (4) calls for speculation; (5) argumentative; (6) vague or unintelligible; (7) assumes facts not in evidence; (8) misstates the record; (9) calls for an opinion from an unqualified witness; (10) leading where not permitted; and (11) lack of foundation, and no more. 8. Finally, the Parties are instructed to contact the Special Master in the event disputes similar to those that occurred during Afr. Kornfeld's deposition arise in future depositions. If the Parties stray from the direction set forth above or otherwise reach an impasse during a deposition, the Parties should contact the Special Master to address such disputes. The Special Master may recommend adjourning a deposition to allow a Party to meaningfully submit a Motion for Protective Order, or otherwise provide 2 direction to the Parties to allow a deposition to resume and continue in a civil, decent and efficient manner. Shira A. Scheindlin United States District Judge 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?