[brief] Order denying his motion to compel the deposition of [...] and April 19, 2024  Order denying his motion for reconsideration.  Like all corporations, the defendant corporations acted through their directors and officers when they threatened plaintiff with termination and passed him over for promotion to a position he had been promised before he objected to the defendants’ unlawful conduct.  Plaintiff has alleged those retaliatory actions violated the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq.  In contravention of the Court Rules, the trial court refused to compel defendants [...], [...], and [...] to produce [...], a director of each defendant corporation, for deposition pursuant to the notices of deposition plaintiff had served on those defendants.  Rather, in an abuse of discretion, the trial court ruled that plaintiff must subpoena Reiff for deposition because he is a non-party.  The trial court’s Orders effectively deprive plaintiff of his ability to depose Reiff, who is one of the decisionmakers who retaliated against plaintiff in violation of CEPA.  Because Reiff is a resident of Germany, he is outside the subpoena power of this Court.  Plaintiff’s only option is to subpoena Reiff for deposition in Germany pursuant to the procedure established by the Hague Convention of 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters.  But that is no option at all.  In Germany, depositions may only be taken by a consular official, a commissioner appointed by a German court or a German judge.  Plaintiff would not have the right to depose Reiff as if he were a witness in open court as provided by R. 4:14-3.  To the contrary, under German law, plaintiff would have no right to cross-examine Reiff and Reiff would have the right to refuse to answer questions.  The trial court’s Orders conflict with Supreme Court precedent that protects a party’s right to depose a foreign director of a corporate defendant in a United States court in accordance with the local court’s discovery rules.  The trial court itself recognized the unfairness of requiring plaintiff to depose Reiff in Germany under the restrictions imposed by German law.  Therefore, the trial court ordered that the deposition take place in New Jersey.  However, the trial court failed to recognize the inherent contradiction in its Order.  Plaintiff cannot compel Reiff to appear in New Jersey through a subpoena served on him in Germany.  Compliance with the trial court’s Order is impossible.  Our Court Rules and the cases applying them require a corporate party to produce a director with knowledge pursuant to a notice of subpoena.  The trial court’s Orders should be reversed because they are contrary to the Court Rules.  If the Orders are not reversed, plaintiff will be deprived of the opportunity to take a meaningful deposition of a witness the trial court itself found is a witness with knowledge of relevant facts no other witness has.  Moreover, if left unchecked, the trial court’s Orders will have a chilling effect on New Jersey employees with claims of unlawful discrimination or retaliation against international companies.  Our employment laws depend on private actions by individual plaintiffs to vindicate the Legislature’s goal of eradicating unlawful workplace discrimination and retaliation.  New Jersey is home to more than 1,200 international companies who employ over 290,000 workers.  Those workers must have the ability to depose foreign decisionmakers in New Jersey under our Court Rules to vindicate their statutory civil rights.  RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY