American Lecithin Company v. Rebmann

S.D. New York

American Lecithin Company v. Rebmann

DecidedJuly 12, 2023

Docket1:12-cv-00929

StatusUnknown

This text of American Lecithin Company v. Rebmann (American Lecithin Company v. Rebmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Lecithin Company v. Rebmann, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X AMERICAN LECITHIN CO., LIPOID GmbH, LIPOID LLC, and PHOSPHOLIPID GmbH,

Plaintiffs, ORDER

-against- 12-CV-929 (VSB) (JW)

CARSTEN MATTHIAS REBMANN,

Defendant; Counterclaim and Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

HERBERT REBMANN, LIPOID GRUNDSTUECKS GmbH, LIPOID VERWALTUNGS, GmbH, LIPOID AG, and COMPLECTOR AG,

Third-Party Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X JENNIFER E. WILLIS, United States Magistrate Judge: On July 11, 2023, Third-Party Defendants’ counsel wrote to request that the ordered deposition of Third-Party Defendant Herbert Rebmann be held subject to any need for a continued date. Dkt. No. 343. Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff wrote to oppose the request as premature. Dkt. No. 344. The Court may extend the presumptive 7-hour deposition limit in Rule 30(d) for good cause. Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd., No. 04-CV-1514 (PAC), 2008 WL 2224288, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2008). However, as the deposition has not yet occurred, the Court is unable to make a determination about the scope of the enlargement needed. Therefore, the request is DENIED as itis premature. Third-Party Defendants’ counsel may write to renew the request after the scheduled deposition has occurred. However, before writing to the Court, the parties are directed to meet and confer about the need for an enlargement of the deposition and the proposed scope of the enlargement. Further, on May 10, 2022, the Court granted a sixty-day stay in this action so that Defendant Carsten “Matthias” Rebmann could obtain new counsel. Dkt. No. 305. As the sixty-days have expired and Matthias has new counsel, Dkt. No. 313, the stay should be lifted. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to close the motion at Dkt. No. 343 and lift the stay on this case. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York July 12, 2023 W Mt Sorfin E Wille. United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X AMERICAN LECITHIN CO., LIPOID GmbH, LIPOID LLC, and PHOSPHOLIPID GmbH,

Plaintiffs, ORDER

-against- 12-CV-929 (VSB) (JW)

CARSTEN MATTHIAS REBMANN,

Defendant; Counterclaim and Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

HERBERT REBMANN, LIPOID GRUNDSTUECKS GmbH, LIPOID VERWALTUNGS, GmbH, LIPOID AG, and COMPLECTOR AG,

Third-Party Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X JENNIFER E. WILLIS, United States Magistrate Judge: On July 11, 2023, Third-Party Defendants’ counsel wrote to request that the ordered deposition of Third-Party Defendant Herbert Rebmann be held subject to any need for a continued date. Dkt. No. 343. Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff wrote to oppose the request as premature. Dkt. No. 344. The Court may extend the presumptive 7-hour deposition limit in Rule 30(d) for good cause. Margel v. E.G.L. Gem Lab Ltd., No. 04-CV-1514 (PAC), 2008 WL 2224288, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2008). However, as the deposition has not yet occurred, the Court is unable to make a determination about the scope of the enlargement needed. Therefore, the request is DENIED as itis premature. Third-Party Defendants’ counsel may write to renew the request after the scheduled deposition has occurred. However, before writing to the Court, the parties are directed to meet and confer about the need for an enlargement of the deposition and the proposed scope of the enlargement. Further, on May 10, 2022, the Court granted a sixty-day stay in this action so that Defendant Carsten “Matthias” Rebmann could obtain new counsel. Dkt. No. 305. As the sixty-days have expired and Matthias has new counsel, Dkt. No. 313, the stay should be lifted. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to close the motion at Dkt. No. 343 and lift the stay on this case. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York July 12, 2023 W Mt Sorfin E Wille. United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

American Lecithin Company v. Rebmann, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-lecithin-company-v-rebmann-nysd-2023.