268-0 Order on Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s Motions 234 and 248

268-0 Order on Motions 234 and 248

September 29th, 2023

 

Full docket text for document 268:
ORDER denying [234] MOTION for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 26(c) filed by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., and denying [248] MOTION to Strike and Order Depositions Taken as Noticed filed by Camillia Mapley, Tracy Caekaert. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 9/29/2023. (EMH)

 

Related documents:

234-0 Watchtower New York Motion for Protective Order

248-0 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Order Depositions Taken As Noticed

 

 

Excerpts:

 

“By asserting the Deponents are non-parties and Plaintiffs need to serve subpoenas to depose them, WTNY undermines the entire basis for its motion for protective orders. If the Deponents are non-parties, WTNY does not have standing to seek a protective order on their behalf. ”

“…In short, Plaintiffs’ characterization of WTNY’ s conduct as a bait and switch is accurate. Until the reply brief, WTNY represented that it controlled the Deponents and that Plaintiffs needed to go through WTNY to depose them. Then, in its reply, WTNY asserts that the Deponents are non-parties and Plaintiffs have to serve subpoenas on them, instead of working through WTNY. As Plaintiffs posited, if WTNY’ s stance all along was that it was not going to designate the Deponents as 30(b)(6) witnesses, that the Deponents are not eligible for 30(b)(l) status because they are not officers of WTNY, and that the Deponents are nonparties on whom Plaintiffs needed to serve subpoenas, then why did they ever exercise such control? Since WTNY does not answer this question, the Court can only infer that it sought to gatekeep access to the Deponents however possible.

“But WTNY cannot have it both ways, and such conduct violates WTNY’s duty of candor to the Court, as well as to Plaintiffs.”

“Given that WTNY’ s reply undermined the entire basis for its Motion for Protective Order, the Court finds denying the motion on the grounds that WTNY did not have standing to file it is appropriate. Because the Court denies the motion on standing grounds, it will not consider its substantive arguments.”

“The Court has issued ad nauseum reprimands to the parties and reminders of the parties’ obligations to engage in discovery in good faith…For WTNY to act in bad faith here despite the Court’s repeated rebukes is unacceptable and justifies the Court’s conclusions herein.”

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.’ s (“WTNY”) Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 234) is DENIED…”

 

 

 

File Type: pdf
Categories: Caekaert v. Watchtower
Tags: Caekaert v. Watchtower
classic-editor-remember: classic-editor
JWCA Document Number: 268.0
Downloads: 32
justice gavel
Share:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.