Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Plaintiffs motion to compel Defendant Kanye West (West) to appear in New York for his
deposition.
BACKGROUND
2. This is an action for copyright infringement and other claims resulting from
Wests unauthorized use of Plaintiffs musical composition, Gyongyhaju Lany, in the song New
Slaves. The Scheduling Order (ECF No. 19) requires all discovery to be completed less than two
discovery demands. For example, Defendants insisted that Plaintiff Gabor Presser travel from
Budapest to New York at his own expense for his deposition and would not consent to a more
convenient and efficient deposition by video or telephone. Even worse, Defendants noticed
Pressers deposition for February 22, 2017 and confirmed that date as recently as February 7,
2017. After being informed that Presser had booked his travel plans in reliance on this
confirmation, defense counsel threatened to cancel the deposition or call Presser back for a
Case 1:16-cv-03798-LAK Document 38 Filed 02/17/17 Page 2 of 4
second deposition unless Plaintiffs agreed to produce documents prior to the date set forth in
Defendants Request for Production (and well before Defendants will agree to produce
documents to Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs agreed to this unreasonable request rather than involve the
Court.
5. Plaintiffs served deposition notices on West and the two corporate defendants on
January 13, 2017. The two corporate depositions are proceeding as noticed.
6. Wests deposition was noticed for March 1, 2017 at the offices of Plaintiffs
counsel in New York, the only office that Plaintiffs counsel maintains.
7. On February 7, 2017, three weeks after service of Wests notice, his counsel
8. On February 13, 2017, one month after service, counsel informed me for the first
time that West would be made available only in Los Angeles. Counsels only stated reason for
Wests refusal to comply with the notice was that he primarily resides in California. Counsel
has otherwise declined to discuss the issue. Although counsel asserted that she would be seeking
a ruling of this Court, she has declined to do so or discuss why she has not.
9. It is undisputed that West maintains a residence in New York, as the Court may
recall from Wests failed motion to transfer this case to California. Even Wests friend of
thirty-one years acknowledges that West has an apartment in New York City. Declaration of
2
Case 1:16-cv-03798-LAK Document 38 Filed 02/17/17 Page 3 of 4
10. Counsel does not deny that West has been staying in New York this month.
Bending over backwards yet again, Plaintiffs offered to take Wests deposition at a convenient
time during his current stay in New York even before receiving any requested documents in
order to accommodate his schedule. Counsels response, issued yesterday, was that it was
absurd to suggest that West suddenly drop all business to give a deposition.
11. It is respectfully submitted that the law applies even to Kanye West.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
12. The caselaw does establish a general presumption that a defendants deposition
will be held in the district of his residence. However, this rule is often honored in the breach.
Mill-Run Tours, Inc. v. Khashoggi, 124 F.R.D. 547, 549 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (citations omitted).
Here, West can only allege that he primarily resides in California while maintaining a
residence in this District. His home in New York is enough by itself to require his deposition
13. Even without his home in New York, however, West is not entitled to the
presumption on which he relies because this presumption is not applicable in a suit in which
plaintiff had little choice of forum. Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Adelanto Pub. Util. Auth., No. 09
CIV. 5087 JFK, 2012 WL 1589597, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2012). Here, as set forth at length in
Plaintiffs opposition to Wests motion to transfer, New York was the only plausible forum for
Plaintiffs.
14. In determining the location of Wests deposition, the Court should weigh the
factors of cost, convenience, and litigation efficiency as between the parties. Devlin v. Transp.
Commns Intl Union, Nos. 95 Civ. 0752, 95 Civ. 10838, 2000 WL 28173, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.
14, 2000).
3
Case 1:16-cv-03798-LAK Document 38 Filed 02/17/17 Page 4 of 4
from two perspectives: the impact that the choice of site has on total costs and the relative ability
of the parties to bear the expenses. Id. Here, both perspectives weigh heavily in favor of New
York all of the lawyers in this case would otherwise have to travel across the country and the
16. Factors relevant to convenience include any hardship to counsel, the residence of
the deponents, and the extent to which the witness affairs might be disrupted. Id. In this case,
the interests of counsel would best be served by holding the depositions in New York, since the
attorneys all practice here. In addition, plaintiff's counsel is a solo practitioner, making it more
difficult for him to arrange his schedule to travel to California. Mill-Run Tours, Inc., supra, 124
F.R.D. at 551.
17. Finally, a court should take into account overall litigation efficiency. For
instance, a court can compel a deposition to occur where a relevant document repository is
located, but no such considerations exist in this case. Robert Smalls Inc. v. Hamilton, No. 09
18. I certify that I have conferred in good faith with counsel for West in an effort to
19. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request an order of the Court
directing West to comply with the deposition notice served on him in all respects.