Opinion
00 Civ. 1115 (LAK).
December 7, 2000.
ORDER
The parties have raised a number of discovery issues with the Court. Upon consideration of the parties' extensive letters and oral argument, these issues are resolved as follows:
1. The parties are at loggerheads concerning whether discovery conducted in this action and designated as "confidential" under the protective order may be used in a Delaware action entitled Gotham Partners, L.P. v. Hallwood Realty Partners, L.P., Civ. Action No. 15754 (Del.Ch.), which now is pending before Vice Chancellor Leo E. Strine, Jr. The Court has had the benefit also of reviewing the transcript of proceedings that occurred before the Vice Chancellor on October 31, 2000.
It appears that the discovery materials at issue were provided by parties to this action which are parties also in Delaware. The chief concern appear to be the possible misuse of discovery in this case to circumvent limitations on the scope or duration of discovery in the Delaware case. At the October 31 conference, the Vice Chancellor suggested that application ought first be made to this Court as well as a desire for some indication that the discovery at issue in fact was relevant to this case and taken for a proper purpose here.
This Court has no wish to be a needless impediment to the disclosure of information that might be relevant and useful in another action. Inasmuch as the discovery in question, as this Court understands it, is material produced by parties in this case (or their agents) who are parties also in Delaware, enforcement of the confidentiality order in this case to prevent disclosure in Delaware would serve no purpose of protecting the privacy of the persons who produced the information. It would serve only to place this Court in the position of exercising its judgment as to what might be fair and appropriate discovery in the Delaware case. The Court will not do so. The Vice Chancellor should make those decisions, as they affect only the case pending
It would be inappropriate under U.S. CONST., art. III, and exceptionally burdensome for this Court to determine whether the discovery in question was relevant under Rule 26 and taken for a proper purpose. before him.
Accordingly, any discovery materials which have been designated as confidential and which were produced by a party to this action who is a party also in the Delaware action may be disclosed to any other party to this action who is a party also in the Delaware action and to its Delaware counsel if ordered to do so by the Vice Chancellor. The Court's intention is to leave that matter entirely to the Vice Chancellor inasmuch as it affects only the rights of persons or entities who are parties in both cases.1
2. Defendants Interstate Properties and Steven Roth (together "Interstate") seek to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of plaintiff Hallwood Realty Partners L.P. ("Hallwood"). relating principally to Hallwood's allegation that Interstate is the beneficial owner of 13.5 percent of Hallwood's units. Hallwood, having been served with the notice of deposition, simply refused to show up for the deposition and now resists a Rule 37 order on the ground that Interstate failed to attend depositions for months in this case and should not now be permitted what amounts to a second bite at the apple.
In the interests of getting to the bottom of matters, the Court will require Hallwood to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for examination by Interstate. The deposition, however, will be taken in either Dallas or New York, at Interstate's election. In either case, Interstate will pay all reasonable travel, lodging and subsistence expenses for the witness or his counsel, as the case may be. The deposition shall be limited to three hours unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
3. Hallwood shall produce Mr. Gumbiner for further examination by Interstate as indicated on the record in open court.
4. EFO shall produce a copy of its agreement with Charlesbank, which it may redact as indicated on the record in open court.
SO ORDERED.