MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is the parties’ joint letter regarding plaintiff Charles Oakley’s proposed deposition of James Dolan, the executive chairman and chief executive officer of MSG Networks, Inc., Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., and Sphere Entertainment Group, LLC (collectively, the “MSG defendants”). (Doc. No. 178-1.) Oakley also seeks document production from Dolan and fifteen other witnesses “who (1) gave statements about the February 8, 2017 incident [during which Oakley was forcibly removed from Madison Square Garden]; (2) participated in the removal of Oakley; and (3) purport to have witnessed Oakley being abusive (together, the ‘Interrogatory Witnesses’).” (Id. at 2.) The MSG defendants object to the deposition of Dolan as well as any document production from him, and consent only to provide documents from one of the Interrogatory Witnesses. For the reasons set forth below, Oakley’s motion to compel Dolan’s deposition is GRANTED; Oakley’s motion to compel document production from Dolan is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and Oakley’s motion to compel document production from the Interrogatory Witnesses is GRANTED to the extent these individuals witnessed Oakley being “abusive,” witnessed his removal, or participated in his removal. I. Background This case stems from a 2017 incident at Madison Square Garden (“MSG”) in which Oakley was forcibly removed from a New York Knicks basketball game. Shortly thereafter, Oakley brought a number of civil claims against the MSG defendants and Dolan. The defendants moved to dismiss the case in its entirety for failure to state a claim (Doc. No. 41), and the Court granted that motion (Doc. No. 68). The Second Circuit affirmed the Court’s ruling with respect to all but Oakley’s assault and battery claims, which named only the MSG defendants. See Oakley v. Dolan, 833 F. App’x 896, 902 (2d Cir. 2020); Oakley v. Dolan, 980 F.3d 279, 284 (2d Cir. 2020). On remand, the MSG defendants moved for summary judgment on the assault and battery claims (Doc. No. 102), while Oakley simultaneously moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to add new claims against Dolan (Doc. No. 106). In November 2021, the Court granted the MSG defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Oakley’s motion to amend as futile. (Doc. No. 121.) In May 2023, the Second Circuit vacated the Court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for, among other things, reconsideration of Oakley’s motion to amend. See Oakley v. Dolan, No. 21-2939, 2023 WL 3263618, at *3 (2d Cir. May 5, 2023). Following the Second Circuit’s decision, Oakley renewed his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 148.) The Court granted the motion to the extent that the proposed amended complaint alleged new facts in support of the claims against the MSG defendants, but denied the motion insofar as it sought to add Dolan as a defendant, since “an amendment adding a new defendant without substituting a previous, improperly named defendant does not relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C),” making the new claims against Dolan time-barred. (Doc. No. 158 at 8.) Thereafter, the MSG defendants filed an answer (Doc. No. 166), and the parties commenced discovery on the only remaining claims in the case: Oakley’s assault and battery claims against the MSG defendants. The parties have now reached an impasse on various discovery disputes. Oakley seeks to depose Dolan, which the MSG defendants oppose on the grounds that Dolan is an “apex witness” who does not have “unique knowledge that other witnesses are incapable of conveying.” (Doc. No. 178-1 at 4.) Oakley has also requested the production of emails from multiple MSG witnesses. Initially, Oakley requested discovery from eight specified custodians and numerous unspecified ones, including: “(1) Mr. Dolan (a linear review of Mr. Dolan’s entire inbox from February 7-14, 2017 to present); and (2) seven former or current employees, with search terms, from February 10, 2017 to March 1, and an unlimited placeholder for unspecified ‘Defendant employees.’” (Id. at 3 n.4.) Oakley later modified that placeholder to name twenty MSG custodians and to limit the search of Dolan’s emails to a four-year period. (See id. at 3 & n.4.) The MSG defendants now object on the grounds that Dolan is not a proper custodian, the proposed four-year search period for Dolan’s emails is overbroad, and searching the emails of the remaining custodians will pose an “undue burden.” (Id. at 4-5.) They instead offered a counterproposal identifying as custodians five individuals — “(1) Barry Watkins (former EVP and Chief Communications Officer); (2) a security or operations person identified by [p]laintiff; (3) Lawrence Burian (former EVP, General Counsel); (4) Marc Schoenfeld (former SVP and Associate General Counsel); and (5) James Dolan” — who would produce relevant emails sent or received between February 8, 2017 and March 1, 2017. (Id. at 5.) On August 6, 2024, the parties conferred on these issues. (See id. at 1.) Unable to reach an agreement, the parties submitted a joint letter to the Court on August 19, 2024, describing their respective positions on the disputed discovery requests. (See id.) II. Legal Standards Rule 26 provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,” considering, among other things, “the parties’ relative access to relevant information,” “the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues,” and “whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26 further provides that “[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “The party seeking discovery bears the initial burden of proving the discovery is relevant.” In re Subpoena to Loeb & Loeb LLP, No. 19 Misc. Civ. 241 (PAE), 2019 WL 2428704, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2019). Once that party has shown relevance, “it is up to the responding party to justify curtailing discovery.” Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 284 F.R.D. 132, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fayda, No. 14-cv-9792 (WHP) (JCF), 2015 WL 7871037, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2015) (“[T]he party resisting discovery has the burden of showing undue burden or expense.”). However, “[g]eneral and conclusory objections as to relevance, overbreadth, or burden are insufficient to exclude discovery of requested information.” Lindsey v. Butler, No. 11-cv-9102 (ER), 2017 WL 4157362, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2017). Recognizing “the possibility of business disruption and the potential for harassment” of senior executives, courts may properly scrutinize “requests to depose high-ranking corporate…officials, who are sometimes referred to as ‘apex witnesses.’” Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, No. 11-cv-0691 (LAK) (JCF), 2013 WL 1896932, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2013). Nevertheless, “senior executives are not exempt from deposition, and because principles relating to apex witnesses are in tension with the broad availability of discovery, it is important to excuse a witness from giving testimony only in compelling circumstances.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Indeed, “it is exceedingly difficult to demonstrate an appropriate basis for an order barring the taking of a deposition.” Naftchi v. N.Y. Univ. Med. Ctr., 172 F.R.D. 130, 132 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). The party seeking the deposition has “no burden to show that the deponents have any relevant knowledge.” Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 306 F.R.D. 120, 122 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Rather, the opposing party “bears the burden of proving that the proposed deponent has nothing to contribute.” Speadmark, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 116, 118 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). In deciding whether to allow the deposition of a corporate executive, courts may consider “the likelihood that the individual possesses relevant knowledge, whether another source could provide identical information, the possibility of harassment, and the potential disruption of business.” Scott, 306 F.R.D. at 122. III. Discussion A. Deposition of James Dolan The MSG defendants object to Dolan’s deposition because “[p]laintiff has failed to meet his burden to show Mr. Dolan has unique knowledge that other witnesses are incapable of conveying.” (Doc. No. 178-1 at 4.) But the defendants misunderstand which party bears the burden here. It is the defendants who must show that Dolan has “nothing to contribute” to this litigation, Speadmark, 176 F.R.D. at 118, and it is by no means clear that Dolan “do[es] not possess information relevant to [Oakley's] claims” or that he only “posses[es] information that duplicates the information” that would be provided by lower-level MSG security officials. Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Platinum Indem. Ltd., 210 F.R.D. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). In fact, it appears obvious that Dolan possesses information that is relevant to Oakley’s claims and cannot be obtained from any other witness. At the most basic level, Dolan was an eyewitness to the removal of Oakley and can provide personal observations as to Oakley’s behavior that evening and the force used to remove him. Additionally, Oakley has alleged that, moments before his removal, Dolan “called over a security guard that he employed and conversed with the security guard,” who then spoke with Oakley. (Doc. No. 164
