Rodriguez v Security USA, Inc.

Supreme Court, Richmond County

Decided on March 6, 2026

Index No. 100035/2025

Ronald Castorina, Jr., J.

I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 011) numbered 169-173, 207-210, 226; (Motion No. 012) numbered 177-183, 189-191, 211-214, 227; (Motion No. 013) numbered 184-186, 215-218, 228; and (Motion No. 014) numbered 188, 194-203; 219-225, 229 were read on this motion. The motions were accepted on submission.

Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a], the Court states that the following papers were read and considered on Plaintiff's motions bearing Motion Sequence Numbers 011, 012, 013 and 014: the respective Notices of Motion and affirmations in support filed by Plaintiff for each motion sequence, including the supporting exhibits annexed thereto; the affirmation in opposition submitted by Defendants addressing Motion Sequence Numbers 11 through 14; and the reply affirmations submitted by Plaintiff in further support of each motion sequence.

Upon the foregoing papers, and after due deliberation, the motions are determined as follows.

II. Procedural History and Findings of Fact

This action was commenced by Plaintiff Andre V. Rodriguez, appearing pro se, against Defendants Security USA, Inc. and Rami Hahitti, seeking damages arising from alleged defamatory statements.

The motions presently before the Court arise from an extended discovery dispute concerning the conduct of depositions, the method by which depositions should be recorded, and the allocation of costs associated with those depositions.

The record reflects that Plaintiff has sought to conduct examinations before trial of Defendants and other witnesses. The parties, however, have been unable to complete those depositions due to disagreements concerning the mechanics of the deposition process. In particular, Plaintiff has sought authorization to record depositions through audio or audiovisual means, while Defendants have insisted that depositions proceed before a certified stenographic court reporter.

These disputes have resulted in a series of motions and cross-motions concerning the completion of depositions, the enforcement of prior discovery directives, and the imposition of sanctions.

Plaintiff's motions collectively seek orders compelling depositions, establishing the permissible method for recording deposition testimony, allocating the cost of stenographic services, enforcing prior court directives, and imposing sanctions for alleged noncompliance with discovery obligations.

Defendants oppose the motions and maintain that depositions must proceed before a stenographic reporter and that the cost of such services must be borne by the party seeking the deposition.

The Court now addresses these issues.

A. Prior Poor Person Order

Before turning to the substance of the discovery disputes, the Court addresses the procedural posture concerning Plaintiff's financial status in this action.

The record reflects that by order dated June 26, 2025, a Justice of this Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed as a poor person pursuant to CPLR § 1101. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 33). That order states, in substance, that the Court reviewed Plaintiff's application alleging that the applicant was unable to pay court costs, fees, and expenses required to prosecute or defend the case, that no other person was beneficially interested in the action, and that the applicant possessed a good cause of action. (see id). The order further directed that the application was granted and that the clerk of the court was not to charge the applicant for court costs, fees, or expenses in connection with the case. (see id).

This Court does not disturb that prior order.

However, it must be emphasized that poor person relief under CPLR § 1101 is limited in scope. Such relief generally concerns court costs and filing fees payable to the clerk of the court. It does not operate to shift the ordinary expenses of civil litigation to an opposing party. Nor does it authorize a litigant to compel an adversary to finance the prosecution of that litigant's case.

Accordingly, while the Court recognizes that Plaintiff has previously been granted relief from certain court costs and filing fees, that relief does not require Defendants to bear the expenses associated with depositions or other discovery devices.

[*2]III. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

A. Scope and Purpose of Disclosure

The disclosure provisions of the Civil Practice Law and Rules are designed to promote the fair and efficient resolution of disputes by ensuring that parties have access to information material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action.

Under CPLR § 3101 [a], there shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. The Court of Appeals has long held that the phrase "material and necessary" must be interpreted liberally so as to require disclosure of any facts bearing on the controversy that will assist preparation for trial (see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403 [1968]).

Depositions constitute one of the principal discovery devices contemplated by Article 31 of the CPLR. Examinations before trial provide parties with the opportunity to obtain sworn testimony, explore factual issues, and narrow the matters to be resolved at trial.

Trial courts possess broad authority to supervise the disclosure process and to regulate the conduct of depositions. That authority includes the power to impose reasonable conditions governing the manner in which depositions are conducted and recorded, particularly where disputes between the parties threaten to impede the orderly progression of discovery.

B. Method of Recording Depositions

A central dispute between the parties concerns the method by which depositions should be recorded. Plaintiff seeks authorization to record depositions by audio or audiovisual means. Defendants object and maintain that depositions must proceed before a stenographic court reporter.

Under CPLR § 3113, depositions must be taken before an officer authorized to administer an oath and record the testimony. Although the statute permits certain flexibility in the method of recording testimony, the Court retains the authority to regulate disclosure and to fix the method by which depositions shall be conducted where the parties are unable to reach agreement.

The record in this matter demonstrates that repeated disputes concerning deposition procedures have prevented the completion of depositions and have generated substantial motion practice. The Court therefore finds it necessary, in the exercise of its discretion, to establish a clear and uniform procedure governing depositions in this action.

Accordingly, the Court directs that all depositions shall be conducted before a stenographic court reporter, whose transcript shall constitute the official record of the deposition. This determination is made in order to ensure the creation of a reliable and authoritative record of testimony and to prevent further disputes concerning the accuracy or admissibility of recordings. Absent written stipulation of the parties or further order of the Court, depositions shall not be recorded solely by audio or audiovisual means.

C. Allocation of Deposition Costs

Plaintiff further seeks an order requiring Defendants to bear the cost of stenographic reporting services. The Court declines to impose such a requirement.

In ordinary civil practice, the party noticing a deposition is responsible for arranging and paying for the stenographic reporter and transcript. Nothing in the CPLR requires an opposing party to finance discovery requested by an adversary.

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff has asserted financial hardship and is proceeding without counsel. However, poor person status does not entitle a litigant to compel an adversary to finance the prosecution of the action. To hold otherwise would create the potential for [*3]unlimited discovery at the opposing party's expense and would be inconsistent with the ordinary allocation of litigation costs in civil actions.

Accordingly, the Court holds that the party noticing any deposition shall arrange for and bear the cost of the stenographic court reporter and transcript.

D. Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to CPLR § 3126, alleging that Defendants have failed to comply with discovery obligations. Sanctions under CPLR § 3126 are appropriate where a party's failure to comply with disclosure obligations is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.

Although the record reflects disagreement between the parties concerning deposition procedures, the Court does not find a sufficient showing of willful or contumacious conduct warranting the imposition of sanctions at this time.

The Court therefore declines to impose sanctions.

E. Case Management and Completion of Depositions

The Court further notes that this action has already generated substantial motion practice concerning discovery, and that depositions have not yet been completed despite the passage of considerable time. Trial courts possess broad discretion to supervise disclosure and to impose firm deadlines for the completion of discovery in order to ensure the orderly progression of litigation.

In the ordinary course, the Court would require depositions to be completed within sixty days. However, Plaintiff has repeatedly asserted that he lacks the financial resources necessary to promptly arrange deposition reporting services. While those assertions have not been supported by verified financial documentation before this Court, the Court nevertheless takes into account Plaintiff's pro se status and the prior order granting relief from certain court costs.

Accordingly, in the exercise of its discretion, and solely in order to afford Plaintiff a fair opportunity to complete depositions, the Court will extend the customary sixty-day period and permit ninety days for the completion of all depositions. The Court emphasizes that the extension granted herein is intended to bring finality to the deposition phase of discovery. The parties have already had ample opportunity to complete depositions, and further delay cannot be permitted absent a showing of good cause.

Failure to notice and complete depositions within the time period set forth below will therefore constitute a waiver of the right to conduct such depositions unless relief is sought by motion prior to the expiration of the deadline.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Motion Sequence Number 011 is granted solely to the extent that depositions shall proceed in accordance with this Decision and Order, and is otherwise denied.

Motion Sequence Number 012 is granted to the extent that the Court fixes the method by which depositions shall be conducted, and is otherwise denied.

Motion Sequence Number 013 is denied as academic in light of the directives contained herein.

Motion Sequence Number 014 is granted to the extent that depositions shall proceed consistent with this Decision and Order, and is otherwise denied.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Motion Sequence Numbers 011 and 014 are granted to the extent that depositions shall proceed in accordance with this Decision and Order and are otherwise denied; and it is further

ORDERED that Motion Sequence Number 012 is granted solely to the extent that the [*4]Court fixes the method of recording depositions and is otherwise denied; and it is further

ORDERED that Motion Sequence Number 013 is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that all depositions in this action shall be conducted before a stenographic court reporter, whose transcription shall constitute the official record of the deposition; and it is further

ORDERED that the party noticing any deposition shall arrange for and bear the cost of the stenographic court reporter and transcript; and it is further

ORDERED that all depositions shall be noticed, scheduled, and completed within ninety (90) days of the date of this Decision and Order; and it is further

ORDERED that any application for relief from this deadline must be made by motion prior to the expiration of the ninety-day period; and it is further

ORDERED that failure to notice and complete depositions within the time provided herein, absent further order of the Court, shall constitute a waiver of the right to conduct such depositions; and it is further

ORDERED that Parties are to appear for an in-person compliance conference on the next adjourn date on June 9, 2026, at 9:30 AM at the Courthouse located at 26 Central Avenue, Courtroom 330, Staten Island, NY.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: March 6, 2026

Staten Island, New York

HON. RONALD CASTORINA, JR.

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT