Vermont Telephone Co. v. FirstLight Fiber: The Propriety of Taking Certain Depositions After Discovery has Closed
In the telecommunications industry, the complexities of legal disputes often reach far beyond simple contractual disagreements between opposing parties. A recent example of this reality is the ongoing litigation between Vermont Telephone Company, Inc. (“VTel“) and FirstLight Fiber, Inc. (“FirstLight“). As the parties prepared for a September 2023 trial, certain questions arose in Hillsborough Superior Court concerning the propriety of taking a discovery deposition and trial deposition even though discovery had closed in the case on June 15, 2022.
To understand the roots of the dispute between VTel and FirstLight, it is important to lay a foundation. The lawsuit commenced following a series of events in 2019 which involved Colin Meyn (“Meyn”), a reporter, who visited and photographed FirstLight’s equipment at two collocation facilities. The tour was conducted under the guidance of Sam Coleman, a VTel Network Engineer. Subsequently, an article written by Meyn included the FirstLight photographs and fueled a debate around VTel’s allegations of FirstLight’s improper usage of Huawei equipment in its network.
As the case continued to unfold, FirstLight expressed its wish to depose Meyn but failed to do so before discovery closed on June 15, 2022. This request—to seek leave and take the Meyn deposition—created a new facet in the ongoing litigation, leading the Superior Court to discuss the nuances of discovery depositions and trial depositions.
A discovery deposition is an essential part of the pre-trial phase, aimed at uncovering each material witness’s knowledge and perspective on the matter at hand. In this case, FirstLight argued that the disclosed phone records revealed inconsistencies in the deposition of VTel’s president, Michel Guite, regarding his communications with Meyn, thereby warranting Meyn’s discovery deposition. VTel, on the other hand, countered that FirstLight had ample opportunity to seek this deposition during the discovery period (twenty-seven months) but failed to do so.
After considering both arguments, Justice Anderson denied FirstLight’s request for a discovery deposition. The Court reasoned that FirstLight, being aware of Meyn’s significant role in the dispute, should have sought his deposition earlier in the litigation. This ruling highlights the importance for a practitioner to diligently take discovery depositions within the allocated timeframe set forth by the courts.
However, the Court decided in FirstLight’s favor when it came to the company’s request for a trial deposition. Trial depositions are testimonies recorded for use at trial, particularly when a key witness might not be available during the trial itself. Considering that Meyn’s residence in Maryland falls beyond the Court’s jurisdiction and its subpoena power, FirstLight sought his trial deposition.
The Court, recognizing Meyn’s importance to the case and potential unavailability during the trial, granted FirstLight’s trial deposition request. However, the Court also cautioned that any difficulties encountered by FirstLight in securing Meyn’s testimony due to intervention by his former employer would not warrant a delay in the trial. This ruling underscores the delicate balancing act courts must undertake when dealing with requests for trial depositions, ensuring that a party can present relevant evidence without unduly prejudicing the opposing party.
In conclusion, FirstLight Fiber offers an examination of the intricacies of discovery and trial depositions within the broader landscape of telecommunications litigation. This unfolding case stands as a compelling reminder of how critical and nuanced the deposition process is to the trajectory and outcome of a lawsuit.
You can contact Alfano Law by calling (603) 856-8411 or at this link.