X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 were read on this motion for DISCOVERY. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION   This discovery motion arises in the context of a slip-and-fall personal-injury action. Plaintiff, Rita Rosenfeld, slipped and fell in the lobby of an office building located at 1407 Broadway in Manhattan, on what she alleges to have been a wet and slippery floor. The building is owned by defendant 1407 Broadway LLC. It is managed and operated by various defendant entities affiliated with defendant Shorenstein Properties LLC (collectively, Shorenstein).1 Cleaning services for the building (including the lobby) are provided by defendant Collins Building Services, Inc. In the course of discovery, Collins and 1407/Shorenstein have each produced a witness for deposition. 1407 Broadway now moves to compel Collins to produce additional witnesses for deposition. Collins cross-moves to compel Shorenstein to produce an additional deposition witness, as well.2 1407 Broadway’s motion is granted. Collins’s cross-motion is granted only to the extent of permitting Collins to serve a limited number of interrogatories on Shorenstein on the subjects for which Collins is seeking an additional deposition. DISCUSSION A corporate entity has the right to choose whom it will produce for deposition in the first instance. (See CPLR 3106 [d].) Once the deposition of the party’s designated witness(es) has been taken, additional depositions will be required only if the deposing party makes a detailed showing “that the employees already deposed had insufficient information and there was a substantial likelihood that those sought to be deposed possess information necessary and material to the prosecution of the case.” (Alexopoulos v. Metropolitan Transit Auth., 37 AD3d 232, 233 [1st Dept 2007].) I. 1407 Broadway’s Motion to Compel an Additional Deposition Collins previously produced a deposition witness named Wojciech Wisniewski. Wisniewski supervised Collins’s operations at a number of buildings, including the office building where the accident in this case occurred. 1407 Broadway argues that Wisniewski was unable to provide sufficient information on key factual questions, warranting the deposition of additional witnesses from Collins. This court agrees. To be sure, as Collins emphasizes (see NYSCEF No. 100 at 4), Wisniewski was able to give testimony on Collins’s normal anti-slip protocols at 1407 Broadway during inclement weather — such as the placement of floor mats, yellow caution signs, and the like. (See NYSCEF No. 91 at Tr. 53-75, 83, 89-95, 100-102 [Wisniewski deposition transcript].) But Wisniewski was not able to provide details about whether and to what extent those protocols had been followed on the morning of Rosenfeld’s fall. Wisniewski’s testimony reflected that his normal arrival time at 1407 Broadway (between 8:00 and 10:00 a.m.) was after the time of the accident (approximately 7:40 a.m. or slightly earlier). (See id. at 100; NYSCEF No. 102 at 53 [Quirke deposition transcript].) But he could not recall when he arrived at the building on the day of the accident or whether he had spoken to anybody at the building that morning; and he was somewhat equivocal about whether he had even entered the building on that particular day, as opposed to merely parking his car there. (See NYSCEF No. 91 at Tr. 22-26, 99.) He also stated that he had been told about the accident later in the day (rather than at or shortly after the time it occurred). (See id. at 23.) Wisniewski thus lacked first-hand knowledge about the condition of the lobby floor when Rosenfeld fell, or the circumstances of her fall. Moreover, he could not provide information that he had gleaned from other sources, either. He said that he could not recall whether he had spoken with anyone who had observed the condition of the floor at the time of the accident, and if so what was said. (See id. at 79-81.) Wisniewski did not prepare a report about the accident, was doubtful that he had asked anyone else to prepare a report, and had not read a report from any source prior to being prepared for his deposition. (See id. at 27-29.) At most, Wisniewski said that he had “probably” asked Trevor Brantley (a Collins employee working in the building that morning) about the accident. (Id. at 33.) Wisniewski had not, however, asked Brantley to write down what he knew, and could not remember the substance of any oral conversation between them. (See id.) And Wisniewski said he did not know whether Jaime Rodriguez (the other Collins employee then present in the building) had used a mop that day on the lobby floor to keep it dry. (See id. at 102.) In short, Wisniewski could not provide information on a significant question in this litigation — whether any Collins employee had taken measures to ameliorate any slipping hazard in the lobby resulting from due to inclement weather. But Wisniewski’s deposition testimony did identify two Collins employees — Brantley and Rodriguez — who would be much more likely to be able to provide that information. Nonetheless, in opposing the motion to compel, Collins heatedly asserts that the motion is “a fishing expedition” that is “seeking to harass [Collins] in retaliation” for the failure of settlement negotiations between Collins and 1407/Shorenstein. (NYSCEF No. 100 at 8.) This court disagrees. Collins also argues that the testimony of Brantley and Rodriguez would be either cumulative or immaterial given that nothing indicates they witnessed Rosenfeld’s fall or its immediate aftermath. (See id. at 5-7.) The basis for requiring Collins to produce Brantley and Rodriguez for deposition is not that they could testify to the circumstances of the accident itself, though. Rather, it is that they could provide necessary and material testimony about what steps, if any, they (and thus Collins) had taken earlier that morning to reduce the chances of someone’s slipping and falling on the lobby floor. The likelihood that they can provide such testimony — coupled with the fact that Wisniewski could notswarrants their additional depositions. II. Collins’s Cross-Motion to Compel an Additional Deposition 1407 Broadway and Shorenstein previously produced a deposition witness named Kevin Quirke. Quirke is employed by a Shorenstein subcontractor (Quality Building Services) responsible for running the lobby desks and operating the building’s freight elevators. (See NYSCEF No. 101-102.) Collins cross-moves to compel 1407/Shorenstein to produce another witness, arguing that this further deposition is warranted by material gaps in Quirke’s testimony. This court finds Collins’s argument unpersuasive. Collins’s cross-motion seeks testimony relating to the subject of the placement of wet-weather floor mats. It is undisputed that the lobby was being renovated when the accident in this case occurred, and that this renovation had entailed the placement of temporary walls in part of the lobby area. Collins asserts that Wisniewski’s deposition testimony indicates that the placement of the temporary construction walls had led Shorenstein also to instruct Collins to change the configuration of the wet-weather floor mats in the lobby, reducing the number of mats in use; that uncovering more of the lobby floor may have contributed to Rosenfeld’s fall; and that Shorenstein’s witness Quirke had been unable to provide testimony about renovation-related changes directed by Shorenstein. (See NYSCEF No. 100 at 9-11.) Therefore, Collins contends, 1407/Shorenstein should be compelled to produce an additional witness with knowledge about those changes. (Id. at 12.) This contention faces multiple difficulties, however — both procedural and substantive. As a procedural matter, Quirke was deposed in July 2019 and Wisniewski in November 2019. (See NYSCEF No. 91 at 1; No. 102 at 1.) Thus, on Collins’s own account, it would have been put on notice by November or December 2019 that further testimony was needed on a significant point in the case. But Collins did not move at that point to compel a further deposition. Indeed, even at a status conference held on February 26, 2020, in which the parties discussed 1407 Broadway’s intention to move to compel a further deposition witness, Collins did not seek to reserve its right to file its own motion to compel — instead, it merely demanded a response to post-deposition demands it had previously served on 1407 Broadway. (See NYSCEF No. 96 [status conference order].) At the very least, therefore, a substantial question exists whether Collins waived its right to seek a further deposition from 1407/Shorenstein.3 Yet Collins’s motion papers do not address the issue of waiver or explain its delay in moving to compel. As a substantive matter, the transcript of Quirke’s deposition shows that Collins’s counsel did not ask him whether he had observed any change in the configuration or placement of wet-weather mats during or related to the lobby-renovation process. Nor did counsel ask Quirke whether a Shorenstein representative had (or likely would have) given Collins employees instructions about where mats should be placed in the lobby during construction.4 (See NYSCEF No. 102 at 72-103, 114-115.) To be sure, as noted above, the deposition testimony from Collins’s own employee Wisniewski on which Collins now relies was given in late November 2019, several months after Quirke’s deposition. But this action was commenced in early June 2017, well before either deposition. It would seem unlikely that it took Collins’s counsel that long to become aware of the possibility that Shorenstein had told Collins employees during construction to change their placement of the wet-weather mats. And Wisniewski’s testimony was itself somewhat equivocal: He stated only that somebody at the building, i.e., Shorenstein, “probably” indicated that the placement of the mats should change due to the lobby construction. (NYSCEF No. 91 at 69.) In these circumstances, this court is disinclined to require 1407/Shorenstein to produce another witness for deposition. At the same time, the court recognizes that whether a Shorenstein representative directed Collins employees to rearrange the lobby’s wet-weather mats due to the ongoing construction could be material in allocating liability among the defendants. This court therefore grants Collins leave to serve a limited set of interrogatories regarding this topic on 1407/Shorenstein. The interrogatories must be served by January 8, 2021; responses and/or objections must be served by February 5, 2021. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that 1407 Broadway’s motion to compel the additional depositions of Collins’s employees Brantley and Rodriguez is granted, and the depositions shall be conducted virtually on or before February 26, 2021, on dates mutually agreeable to the parties; and it is further ORDERED that Collins’s cross-motion to compel the additional deposition of a Shorenstein representative is granted only to the extent that Collins may serve limited interrogatories on 1407 Broadway and Shorenstein as described above, and is otherwise denied; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a telephonic status conference on March 8, 2021. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION X             GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE Dated: December 1, 2020

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
September 05, 2024
New York, NY

The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.


Learn More
July 22, 2024 - July 24, 2024
Lake Tahoe, CA

GlobeSt. Women of Influence Conference celebrates the women who drive the commercial real estate industry forward.


Learn More
September 06, 2024
Johannesburg

The African Legal Awards recognise exceptional achievement within Africa s legal community during a period of rapid change.


Learn More

Our client, a multi-state full-service boutique, is seeking to add an insurance coverage associate or counsel to work closely with one of th...


Apply Now ›

Our client, an Atlanta-based and family-owned commercial construction services firm, has engaged us to identify an in-house attorney for the...


Apply Now ›

The Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District ( SCI ) has broad authority to investigate wro...


Apply Now ›
06/27/2024
The American Lawyer

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›
06/21/2024
Daily Business Review

Full Page Announcement


View Announcement ›
06/14/2024
New Jersey Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›