Exhibit 5

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

CASE NO. 22-CV-23753-MOORE/BECERRA 

 

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al., 

Defendants. 

NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF TAKING THE VIDEOTAPED 

DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT NAOMI OSAKA 

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 30, and 32, Civil Local Rule 26.1, and 

the Discovery Procedures for Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra, Defendant Naomi Osaka 

(“Osaka”), by and through her undersigned attorneys, hereby objects to Plaintiffs’ Notice of 

Deposition of Osaka, served on May 2, 2023 (the “Notice”). 

OBJECTIONS 

1. Plaintiffs’ deposition notice is premature, burdensome, and harassing, and 

Ms. Osaka expressly objects to the timing of the deposition. Plaintiffs have filed a motion 

seeking to consolidate this action with over a dozen others in a multi-district litigation. See In 

re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litig., MDL No. 3076. A consolidation as 

requested by Plaintiffs in their multi-district litigation petition necessarily would impact the 

scheduling and scope of permissible discovery. It is harassing, burdensome, and unnecessary for 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 2 of 5
- 2 - 

Plaintiffs to seek Ms. Osaka’s deposition while Plaintiffs simultaneously are seeking to 

fundamentally change the scope of this case and to potentially subject Ms. Osaka to efforts by 

other plaintiffs in such a consolidated proceeding to demand another deposition of her. 

2. Plaintiffs have presented their notice of deposition as jurisdictional discovery. 

The file name of the pdf that Plaintiffs sent to Ms. Osaka is titled “20230421 – Notice of Taking 

Jurisdictional Deposition of Defendant Naomi Osaka.” Plaintiffs have filed a motion with Judge 

Moore seeking permission to take jurisdictional discovery that is still pending. Dkt. 163 

(“Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery”). In that motion, Plaintiffs represented to Judge Moore 

that defendants including Ms. Osaka have moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction 

based on “newly filed Sworn FTX Defendant Declarations, where they make new arguments to 

support an alleged lack of personal jurisdiction.” ECF No. 163 at 2. As to Ms. Osaka, Plaintiffs’ 

representation to Judge Moore is false. Ms. Osaka did not file any affidavit to support dismissal 

as to her. She makes a facial challenge to personal jurisdiction based on the allegations of 

Plaintiffs’ complaint. There is no factual dispute as to Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations 

against Ms. Osaka, and thus Plaintiffs have no basis to seek jurisdictional discovery from her. 

See In re Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig., 396 F. Supp. 3d 1101, 1157 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (denying 

jurisdictional discovery where there was “no genuine factual dispute concerning personal 

jurisdiction because none of the parties submitted affidavit or declaration evidence in support of, 

or in opposition to, the exercise of personal jurisdiction”). 

3. To the extent Plaintiffs seek to depose Ms. Osaka on the merits, as opposed to 

only for “limited” jurisdictional discovery as Plaintiffs have requested in their pending Motion 

for Jurisdictional Discovery, the Notice is improper for additional reasons. Plaintiffs made no 

effort to coordinate with Ms. Osaka on a deposition date before unilaterally selecting May 10, 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 3 of 5
- 3 - 

2023 and emailing her counsel the deposition notice. Ms. Osaka objects that the proposed 

deposition is unduly burdensome and harassing as she is in an advanced state of pregnancy and 

not currently available for a deposition. Given the number of parties alone, this case merits 

placement on the Court’s “Complex Track,” in which “discovery shall be completed within 270 

to 365 days from the date of the Scheduling Order.” L.R. 16.1(a)(2)(C). That Scheduling Order 

has not even issued yet; there is no basis for Plaintiffs to depose Ms. Osaka in the next eight 

days. 

4. Plaintiffs only served this deposition notice on May 2, 2023 seeking to take 

Ms. Osaka’s deposition on May 10, 2023. Plaintiffs incorrectly contend that they served the 

deposition notice on April 28, 2023 (the date of the parties’ scheduling conference). Regardless 

of the date used, Plaintiffs’ deposition notice is defective because it failed to provide reasonable 

written notice of the deposition as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1) and 

violates the rule that “a party desiring to take the deposition in another State of any person upon 

oral examination shall give at least fourteen (14) days’ notice in writing to every other party to 

the action and the deponent.” See L.R. 26.1(h). Further, because Ms. Osaka received less than 

14 days’ notice of the deposition, and Ms. Osaka has objected and sought protection from the 

Notice in compliance with Civil Local Rule 26.1 and Judge Becerra’s Discovery Procedures, the 

proposed deposition could not be used against Ms. Osaka pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 32(a)(5)(A). Requiring Ms. Osaka to appear and give testimony at a deposition that 

cannot be used in the action is unduly burdensome and harassing.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 4 of 5
- 4 - 

Dated: May 3, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

COLSON, HICKS, EIDSON, P.A. 

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

(305) 476-7400 

 

By: /s/ Roberto Martínez 

Roberto Martínez 

Florida Bar No. 305596 

 bob@colson.com 

Stephanie A. Casey 

Florida Bar No. 97483 

 scasey@colson.com 

Zachary Lipshultz 

Florida Bar No. 123594 

 zach@colson.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

333 South Grand Avenue 

Suite 4600 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 

Phone: 213.229.7155 

By: /s/ Michael Dore 

Michael Dore (pro hac vice) 

 MDore@gibsondunn.com 

Jamila MacEbong (pro hac vice) 

 JMacEbong@gibsondunn.com 

333 South Grand Avenue 

Suite 4600 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 

Phone: 213.229.7155 

Michael J. Kahn (pro hac vice) 

 MJKahn@gibsondunn.com

555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 

San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 

Phone: 415.393.8379 

Attorneys for Defendant Naomi Osaka

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 5 of 5