Lebenns v. Frost Productions et al

Filing 86

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 84 Letter Motion for Discovery. Regardless, this Court reviewed all submissions and rules as follows: Plaintiff's request for oral argument is DENIED, Plaintiff's request for an enlargement of time for Peter Markowitz's deposition is GRANTED in part. As further set forth by this Order. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request for an enlargement is GRANTED, but the Court limits the enlargement to 1.5 hours. Therefore, Peter Markowitz shall sit for a continuing deposition for a total of 3.5 hours. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E Willis on 5/18/2023) (tg)

Case 1:21-cv-11155-JLR-JW Document 86 Filed 05/18/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
ANDREW LEBENNS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER
21-CV-11155 (RA) (JW)

FROST PRODUCTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
JENNIFER E. WILLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
On May 11, 2023, the parties called the Court to resolve a discovery dispute
regarding the continuing deposition of Peter Markowitz. The two questions at issue
are whether the continuation of Peter Markowitz’s deposition was procedurally
limited to 2 hours and, if so, whether the Plaintiff has good cause to enlarge the time
frame. On May 12, 2023, the Court stated it would review written arguments and
ordered letter submissions by May 16, 2023. Dkt. No. 12. The Court notes that
Plaintiff’s submissions at Dkt. Nos. 84 and 85 were not timely filed. Regardless, this
Court reviewed all submissions and rules as follows: Plaintiff’s request for oral
argument is DENIED, Plaintiff’s request for an enlargement of time for Peter
Markowitz’s deposition is GRANTED in part.
Continuing Deposition of Peter Markowitz
“Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited
to 1 day of 7 hours.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d). The deposition of Peter Markowitz
on October 12, 2022, lasted for approximately 5 hours, then was cut short because
the court reporter needed to leave. Dkt. No. 83 at ¶¶1-2. The parties agreed to

Case 1:21-cv-11155-JLR-JW Document 86 Filed 05/18/23 Page 2 of 3
continue the deposition on a different date and agree the remaining time was
approximately 2 hours. Dkt. Nos. 83 and 85.
Plaintiff argues that the deposition may continue beyond 2 hours in part
because Defendant’s counsel did not impose any time restriction on the continuing
deposition of Peter Markowitz. Dkt. No. 84 at ¶3. However, Defendant’s counsel
was not required to set a time limit, as the 7-hour limit is presumptive pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d). Additionally, Plaintiff implicitly agreed to this time limit,
whose counsel said on the record, “[s]o to the extent that we cannot finish, Plaintiff
obviously respectfully reserves the right to complete the deposition because we
haven’t had seven hours of deposition time.” Dkt. No. 83 at ¶2. The Court is
satisfied that the remaining length of the deposition of Peter Markowitz is 2 hours.
Plaintiff’s Request for Enlargement
“A party seeking a court order to extend the time for examination or
otherwise alter the limitations is expected to show good cause to justify such an
order.” Robinson v. De Niro, No. 19-CV-9156 (KHP), 2022 WL 274677, at ¶2
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2022). Plaintiff seeks an enlargement of the deposition of Peter
Markowitz, citing previously unavailable documents as justification for the
enlargement. Dkt. No. 84 at ¶¶ 2-3. As Plaintiff mentions, District courts have
found “good cause” to provide enlargements where the witness needed to be deposed
on voluminous documents. See e.g., City of Almaty v. Ablyazov, 15-CV-05345 (AJN)
(KHP) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 3, 2019). The Court notes that the documents Plaintiff relies
on to support enlargement were provided back in March 2023 and Plaintiff did not
request an enlargement of Peter Markowitz’s deposition for over a month.
However, the Court also recognizes that Plaintiff’s counsel did expressly mention
2

Case 1:21-cv-11155-JLR-JW Document 86 Filed 05/18/23 Page 3 of 3
that they would recall Peter Markowitz to re-depose him on the newly produced
documents. Id. The Court is satisfied that good cause for an enlargement exists.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for an enlargement is
GRANTED, but the Court limits the enlargement to 1.5 hours. Therefore, Peter
Markowitz shall sit for a continuing deposition for a total of 3.5 hours.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:

New York, New York
May 18, 2023

______________________________
JENNIFER E. WILLIS
United States Magistrate Judge

3