On April 14, 2025, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in DOIT Hospitality Del. LLC v. Reuben Bros. Ltd., 2025 NY Slip Op. 50532(U), ordering a plaintiff to produce a witness who lived outside the United States for an in-person deposition in New York, explaining:
Under New York law, depositions of parties to an action are generally held in the county where the action is pending. When the person to be examined is an officer, director, member or employee of a party, the deposition shall also be taken where the action is pending. If a party demonstrates that conducting his deposition in that county would cause undue hardship, the Supreme Court in its exercise of discretion can order the deposition to be held elsewhere.
On this record, Vora submitted an affidavit in opposition to defendant’s partial motion to dismiss, where he attested that he is an authorized representative of DOIT with personal knowledge of the facts and claims set forth in the complaint. Additionally, counsel for Reuben Brothers asserts that Vora attended a virtual UCC auction via Zoom in 2021 — in which Reuben Brothers acquired DOIT’s minority interest in a joint venture that is the subject of this dispute — and that Vora attended on behalf of DOIT. Vora, it thus appears, is both an integral fact witness and an authorized representative of DOIT. Thus, it is DOIT that bears the burden of showing that travel to New York would cause Vora substantial hardship.
Here, DOIT fails to show that Vora will suffer undue hardship if he were compelled to travel to New York for his deposition. Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rules of the Commercial Division, the court may order a remote deposition upon consent of the parties, or upon a motion showing good cause. An opposing party’s refusal to consent is insufficient to overcome the presumption that a party commencing litigation in New York should accept the burdens, costs, or inconveniences of choosing to do so. That there is or may be currently an extensive wait time for an appointment for a visa interview does not render Vora’s travel to New York impossible or impracticable, or otherwise constitute good cause to permit remote deposition. DOIT has failed to set forth what steps, if any, Vora has taken to secure the necessary visa and other travel documents in the time since defendants served the deposition notice on DOIT and Vora on July 9, 2024, over nine months ago — much less whether Vora has taken any steps to expedite such process. Neither has DOIT set forth any reason why it, as plaintiff, has not taken the steps necessary to assist in securing a travel visa for a key witness for a case it commenced in New York in 2022 — now three (3) years ago.
DOIT, as plaintiff, has always had an obligation to produce all fact witnesses within its control or under its employ necessary to prove its claims. Thus, DOIT, as plaintiff, has a decision to make: it may produce Vora for an in-person deposition in New York within 180 days, or not. If it fails to produce Vora in the time period specified, its complaint will be stricken for non-compliance. Having chosen New York as the forum in which to seek relief, DOIT cannot reasonably claim to be aggrieved by the accompanying obligations.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).