Court Opinion

ID: 5832369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 22:28:33.359552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:29.386426
License: Public Domain

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the defendant to produce additional employees for depositions. A corporation has the right to designate, in the first instance, which of its employees will appear for a deposition (see Trueforge Global Mach. Corp. v Viraj Group, 84 AD3d 938, 939 [2011]; Aronson v Im, 81 AD3d 577 [2011]; Sladowski-Casolaro v World Championship Wrestling, Inc., 47 AD3d 803 [2008]). The plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that the defendant’s employee who was already deposed had insufficient knowledge or was otherwise inadequate, and that there was a substantial likelihood that the additional employees of the defendant sought for depositions possessed information that was material and necessary to the prosecution of the action (see Conte v County of Nassau, 87 AD3d 559, 560 [2011]; Thristino v County of Suffolk, 78 AD3d 927, 927-928 [2010]; Sladowski-Casolaro v World Championship Wrestling, Inc., 47 AD3d at 803-804). Skelos, J.E, Angiolillo, Belen, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.