Kintetsu World Express (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Dialectic Distribution LLC, 1:21-cv-09579

Plaintiff Kintetsu World Express (U.S.A.), Inc. (“KWE (U.S.A.)”) and Defendant Dialectic Distribution LLC are engaged in discovery disputes in the Southern District of New York.
The core discovery issue centers on whether KWE (U.S.A.) must produce employees of its international sister corporations for deposition in the U.S.
Additional disputes concern Defendant’s compliance with document production, interrogatory responses, and production of certain witnesses.
Plaintiff has repeatedly notified the court of Defendant's late and incomplete discovery responses.
The court addresses arguments on the status and availability of witnesses employed by related but foreign corporate entities, the adequacy of interrogatory responses, and Plaintiff’s requests for more detailed contact information for former employees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must KWE (U.S.A.) produce overseas employees of its sister corporations for depositions?	Not required, as these individuals are not under KWE (U.S.A.)’s control or managing agents.	KWE (U.S.A.) exercises control via document production, thus it should produce overseas employees.	Not required; Defendant did not meet burden to prove they are managing agents; must use Hague Convention to depose.
Must Defendant produce Owen Green for deposition?	Notice to depose Green was served long ago, and Green was treated as part of Defendant’s team.	Green is employed by a different (sister) entity and not under Defendant’s control.	Defendant’s objection was untimely and must produce Green for deposition.
Was Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s contention interrogatory sufficient?	Defendant’s response was late, with improper objections and documents that do not answer the question.	Did not timely respond or sufficiently answer the interrogatory.	Response was insufficient; must provide an adequate answer by Jan. 18, 2025.
Must Defendant provide more contact info for DeLorenzo and Hoenes?	Defendant provided only names, titles, termination dates, not full contact details.	No adequate response provided.	Must provide full contact information by Jan. 18, 2025.

Chevron Corp. v. Salazar, 275 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (control over corporate affiliates is not presumed for deposition purposes)
United States v. Afram Lines (USA), Ltd., 159 F.R.D. 408 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (five-factor test for managing agent status for deposition)