Oakley v. Dolan et al
Filing
283
ORDER denying 277 Letter Motion for Discovery. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for a protective order that would change the location of the deposition of James Dolan or, in the alternative, institute additional security measures. The law in this district is clear: [T]he party noticing the deposition usually has the right to choose the location. Viera v. United States, No. 18-cv-9270 (KHP), 2019 WL 6683556, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defenda nts have failed to establish good cause for a protective order to alter the location of the deposition or institute additional security measures beyond those which Plaintiff has already offered. See Allen v. City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Accordingly, Defendants' motion for a protective order is DENIED. Dolan's deposition shall take place at the location noticed by Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Doc. No. 277. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan, Sitting by Designation on 1/27/2025) (rro)
accordingly, to meet this standard for a reconsideration motion and should be rejected outright.
In any case, Defendants fail to meet the burden for establishing good cause for the protective order.
See Allen v. City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“Under Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(c), the party seeking a protective order has the burden of showing that good cause exists for
issuance of that order.”) (quoted citations removed). That burden is even harder to meet, here,
since the “presumption” is that the noticing Party “may choose the location of the
deposition.” United States v. M/Y Amadea, a Motor Yacht Bearing Int’l Mar. Org. No. 1012531,
No. 23 CIV. 9304 (DEH), 2025 WL 50027, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2025); accord Viera v. United
States, No. 18 Civ. 9270 (KHP), 2019 WL 6683556, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2019) (same); Hui
Wang v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., No. 3:18-Civ. 2000 (CSH), 2019 WL 2083296, at *3 (D.
Conn. May 13, 2019) (same, and collecting authorities); Sabhnani v. Mirage Brands, LLC, No. 22
Civ. 00936 JSJMW, 2022 WL 16965009, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2022) (same, and collecting
authorities); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1) (noticing party has responsibility of determining the
location of a deposition); 8A Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2112 (3d ed., Jun. 2024
Update) (“the examining party may set the place for the deposition of another party wherever he
or she wishes”).
Defendants cite only three non-conclusory, non-question-begging (but still absurd) reasons for
Dolan to be concerned about the safety of a deposition
(1) the murder of the
CEO of UnitedHealthcare on December 4, 2024; (2) an 11-year old New York Times article;
(3) a brief tech problem during a deposition in this case on January 21, 2025—the latter of
which Defendants threw in as an afterthought in the midst of drafting, given the timing of the
meet and confer and letter draft. But Defendants do not actually explain the nexus between
any of these reasons and a risk to Mr. Dolan. (2) and (3) do not even come close to articulating a
safety risk to Dolan, and reason (1), standing alone, is not sufficient to overturn the usual
presumption in favor of the noticer choosing the deposition’s location. Even accepting that (1)
suggests some minimal security risk, there is no hint of a violent crusade against CEOs afoot;
all of the publicly-known information suggests that it was a narrowly targeted and planned attack
by a lone wolf. This threat is remote and implausible. Indeed, the request itself echoes other
instances of Dolan’s persecution conspiracy theories, such as accusing every fan who criticizes
him of being an alcoholic.5 Nor is it unusual for only some depositions in a case to be taken
by Zoom. Doing so does not create a “precedent” against Plaintiff’s right to set the time, place,
and manner of a deposition.
Underscoring that point (2) is near frivolous, Dolan has stated publicly that he thinks Oakley
was joking when he made this supposedly “threatening” statement. Specifically, Michael Kay
asked Dolan in an interview: “Are you afraid for your safety when [Oakley is] around? Because
he said that whenever he comes to the Garden there’s security following him even into the
bathroom. Are you afraid that he’s going to come after you?” To which Dolan responded, “No,
um they- the uh- I don’t so, (laughs) although he’s… he’s been quoted saying things like he
would poison my food. You know, I don’t think he’s serious about that stuff.”
5
Defendants also misconstrued Plaintiff’s offer regarding Dolan’s security. The relevant
lobby is immediately outside the door of the conference room that would be used for the
deposition. The offer amounted to a substantive accommodation of Dolan’s security team.
4
Before the Court is Defendants' motion for a protective order that would change
the location of the deposition of James Dolan or, in the alternative, institute
additional security measures. The law in this district is clear: “[T]he party
noticing the deposition usually has the right to choose the location.” Viera v.
United States, No. 18-cv-9270 (KHP), 2019 WL 6683556, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6,
2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants have failed to establish
good cause for a protective order to alter the location of the deposition or
institute additional security measures beyond those which Plaintiff has already
offered.
See Allen v. City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y.
2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
Accordingly, Defendants' motion for a
protective order is DENIED. Dolan's deposition shall take place at the location
noticed by Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate
the motion pending at Doc. No. 277.
1/27/2025
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?