Brous v. Eligo Energy, LLC
1:24-cv-01260
| S.D.N.Y. | Jul 7, 2025Background
- Eligo designated its CEO, Mr. Goldstein, as an electronically stored information (ESI) custodian in this consumer protection class action.
- Goldstein served two separate tenures as CEO, most recently from March 2023 to May 2024, a fact Eligo omitted in its designations.
- Plaintiffs seek to depose both Goldstein and another executive, Friedgan, arguing that as high-level decision-makers, they have unique and relevant first-hand knowledge.
- Eligo raised the "apex doctrine" to resist these depositions, arguing the executives possess no unique relevant knowledge and depositions would be unduly burdensome.
- The company is small, with a limited number of high-level executives performing most operational work, as attested by its own 30(b)(6) witness.
- The case involves alleged harm to tens of thousands of New York customers, with Eligo earning substantial revenue from the challenged conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether apex doctrine bars deposition of executives | Goldstein and Friedgan have unique, relevant knowledge | Executives lack unique, relevant knowledge | Depositions can proceed |
| Relevance and proportionality of discovery | Executives have first-hand knowledge central to claims | Depositions are burdensome and unnecessary | Depositions are proportional and relevant |
| Motive for seeking deposition | Case is significant and not harassment | Depositions are meant to harass executives | Not harassment in context of case |
| Scope of executives' involvement | Executives are ultimate authority on policy and conduct | Lower-level executives provide sufficient info | Executive testimony is valuable |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelers Rental Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 116 F.R.D. 140 (D. Mass. 1987) (court permits CEO depositions when intent and motive are at issue)
- Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Platinum Indem. Ltd., 210 F.R.D. 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (courts commonly allow high-ranking executives' depositions in corporate policy disputes)
- Six West Retail Acquisition v. Sony Theatre Mgmt. Corp., 203 F.R.D. 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (permitting CEO deposition when executive is closely involved in facts at issue)
- Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 1993 WL 34678 (key standard for when executive depositions are not harassment) (not included as it lacks reporter citation)