Cesari S.R.L. v. Peju Province Winery L.P. et al

Filing 427

ENDORSEMENT: The requested subpoena appears to be both unnecessary and improper. See ECF No. 425. To the extent the subpoena is intended to ensure plaintiff's expert's attendance at her deposition, it is unnecessary as there is already an agreed upon date. To the extent the subpoena is directed to the production of documents and communications, it is clearly violative of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C) in many respects. To the extent that it seeks information consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C), the Court has no reason to believe that the facts, data, and assumptions underlying plaintiff's expert's opinions have not already been disclosed in her report and extensive exhibits binder. Surely, plaintiff need not reprod uce materials already furnished. With the possible exception of compensation information, defendant is not entitled to additional materials. If the Court's assumption about the completeness of the disclosure of permissible materials is incorrect, that can be explored at plaintiff's expert's deposition. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 5/1/2023) (rro)

Case 1:17-cv-00873-NRB Document 427 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
CESARI S.R.L.,
Plaintiff,

ENDORSEMENT

- against -

17 Civ. 873 (NRB)

PEJU PROVINCE WINERY L.P., PEJU FAMILY
OPERATING PARTNERSHIP L.P., and PEJU
PROVINCE CORPORATION,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------X
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The requested subpoena appears to be both unnecessary and
improper. See ECF No. 425. To the extent the subpoena is intended
to ensure plaintiff’s expert’s attendance at her deposition, it is
unnecessary as there is already an agreed upon date. To the extent
the subpoena is directed to the production of documents and
communications,

it

26(b)(4)(C)

many

in

is

clearly

violative

respects.

To

the

of

Fed.

extent

R.

that

Civ.
it

P.

seeks

information consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C), the Court
has no reason to believe that the facts, data, and assumptions
underlying plaintiff’s expert’s opinions have not already been
disclosed in her report and extensive exhibits binder.

Surely,

plaintiff need not reproduce materials already furnished.

With

the possible exception of compensation information, defendant is
not entitled to additional materials.
1

If the Court’s assumption

Case 1:17-cv-00873-NRB Document 427 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 2

about the completeness of the disclosure of permissible materials
is

incorrect,

that

can

be

explored

at

plaintiff’s

expert’s

deposition.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
May 1, 2023
__
_
__
__
_____
____
__
____
___
__
___
__
___
____
__
____
____
___
____
___
____________________________
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2