Guzman v. News Corporation et al

Filing 99

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants' request for a Protective Order precluding Murdoch's deposition is GRANTED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 6/29/2012) (jfe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SANDRA GUZMAN,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER
- against ­
09 Civ. 9323 (BSJ) (RLE)
NEWS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants seek to quash Plaintiff Sandra Guzman's notice of deposition of Rupert
Murdoch, Chairman of the Board of News Corporation and of the New York Post. Moreover,
they ask the Court to enter a Protective Order prohibiting the deposition of Murdoch. (Defs.'
Ltr., Mar. 12,2012 ("Defs.' Letter").) Guzman asserts that Murdoch is directly involved with
the claims at issue, and possesses unique knowledge, which warrants his deposition. (PI.'s Ltr.,
Mar. 16,2012 ("PI.'s Ltr.").) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' request for a
Protective Order prohibiting the deposition of Rupert Murdoch is GRANTED.
II. BACKGROUND
"-

Guzman alleges in her Amended Complaint, inter ali~:that Defendants engaged in
unlawful employment discrimination based on race. One of Guzman's primary allegations
involves Defendant New York Post's ("the Post") publication of the so-called "chimpanzee
cartoon." (Am. Compl., Oct. 13,2012, Doc. No. 36 ("Am. CompL") ~~ 6-8.) The cartoon
allegedly depicted racist themes, and Guzman asserts that the cartoon was "yet another litany of
examples of the racism pervasive in the work environment" at the Post. (Am. Compi.

~

8.)

During a telephonic status conference with the Parties on July 7, 2011, the Court discussed the

relevance of conductine discovery related to the chimpanzee cartoon and found that Guzman
failed to demonstrate Murdoch's connection to the cartoon as a "legitimate [area] of inquiry."
(Transcript of Conference, July 7, 2011, Doc. No. 55 ("Tr.") at 15.)
Notwithstanding the Court's July 7, 2011 statements regarding Murdoch, on February 13,
2012, Guzman noticed a deposition for Murdoch pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30.
(Pl.'s Ltr., Ex. A.) On March 12,2012, Defendants submitted a letter to the Court requesting
that the Court enter a protective order prohibiting the deposition, and on March 16, 2012,
Guzman submitted a response and opposition letter to the Court. (Defs.' Ltr. at 3; Pl.' s Ltr.)
III. DISCUSSION
A.

The Legal Standard
A party may inquire about "any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to [a] claim or

defense[,]" and "[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, Rule 26 limits the
extent of discovery when, inter alia: (1) the discovery is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative;
(2) the discovery can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
While senior executives are not immune from discovery, "[c Jourts have recognized an
additional layer of protection for senior corporate executives subject to depositions." Alex &
Ani, Inc. v. MOA Int'l Corp., 10 Civ. 4590 KMW, 2011 WL 6413612 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21,2(11);
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Prlmwy Industries Corp., No. 92 Civ. 4927, 1993 WL 364471, at
*12 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10,1993) (quoting CBS, Inc. v. Ahern. 102 F.R.D. 820,822
2

(S.D.N.Y.1984 )). A party moving to quash the deposition of a senior executive must

"demonstrate that the proposed deponent has no personal knowledge ofthe relevant facts and no
unique knowledge of those facts." Malletier v. Dooney & Burke, Inc., 2006 WL 3476735, at *12
(S.D.N.Y. Nov.30, 2006) (Dolinger, J.). However, unless it can be demonstrated that a corporate
official has "some unique knowledge" of the issues in the case, "it may be appropriate to
preclude a[ ] deposition of a highly-placed executive" while allowing other witnesses with the
same knowledge to be questioned. Consolidated Rail Corp., 1993 WL 364471, at * 1 (citations
omitted).

B.

Murdoch does not have sufficient involvement or special knowledge to warrant a
deposition.
Defendants argue that Murdoch had no involvement in the matters related to Guzman's

claims, including decisions affecting her employment, and that Murdoch had no special or
unique knowledge of Guzman's claims. (Dei's.' Ltr. at 1.) Guzman counters that Murdoch
actually does possess "unique knowledge" because he is the "ultimate supervisor" of Senior Vice
President Les Goodstein, one of the individuals Guzman claims discriminated against and
harassed her. (ld. at

.) Further, Guzman claims Murdoch has "unique knowledge" in this

case because he is knowledgeable about Defendants News Corp. and the Post and the operations
of those corporate entities. In particular, Guzman asserts that Murdoch participated directly in a
pertinent event, in this case, the response to complaints and his public and personal apology
regarding the chimpanzee cartoon. CPl.'s Ltr. at 2.)
Additionally, because Defendants' Rule 30Cb)(6)witness, Jordan Lippner, could not
answer deposition questions of many aspects of the corporations' operations and organization,
Guzman asserts that Murdoch's deposition is warranted.

3

The Court has already determined that Murdoch's involvement in the chimpanzee
cartoon~

and any conversations that took place regarding his apology or response to the public

outcry, are not a "legitimate [area] of inquiry." (Tr. at 15.) Further, Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that Murdoch has any special or unique knowledge relevant to the claims.
Murdoch's association with Les Goodstein, even as direct supervisor, does not immediately
confer "unique knowledge" of Goodstein's relationship with New York Post employees.
Additionally, with regard to the Defendants' operations, Plaintiffs have not produced any
evidence that Murdoch has any special or unique knowledge that could not be obtained
elsewhere. I Murdoch's testimony would therefore at best be duplicative.
IV. CONCLUSION
Defendants' request for a Protective Order precluding Murdoch's deposition is
GRANTED.

SO ORDERED this 29th day of June 2012
New York, New York

The Honorable Ronald L. EUis
United States Magistrate Judge

I Plaintiffs assert that Jordan Lippner, the designated Rule 30(b)(6) witness for Defendants, was unable to
answer several questions about the corporate Defendants and that Murdoch's deposition could answer these
questions. Examples of questions presented during Lippner's deposition asked how many employees work for News
Corp. and the New York Post, how often the Board of Directors of the Post meets, or the functions of the Boards of
the corporate Defendants. The basic nature of some of the questions identified actually counsel against allowing the
deposition. Guzman has not demonstrated how Murdoch would provide any unique knowledge as to those questions
or why Murdoch's deposition is warranted for that reason.

4