The Court denied Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order seeking to delay the taking of the depositions of its representatives. It held that the defendants had unreasonably taken the position that they could not be available for depositions for nearly four months. It also rejected their argument that their primary counsel could not be available for their depositions given other commitments, noting that the law firms representing them had 650 lawyers between them, and that it was "confident that [the defendant] can find one or two other lawyers to defend the depositions."

Full Opinion