A New York appellate court has upheld a lower court's decision to allow the deposition of a nonparty in a case involving international discovery. The ruling affects Dorilton Capital Management LLC and Stilus LLC, who are in a legal dispute regarding contract termination. This decision is significant as it clarifies the process for obtaining testimony from individuals located in foreign jurisdictions.
The case, Dorilton Capital Mgt. LLC v. Stilus LLC, was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on May 7, 2026. The court's ruling came after an appeal from Dorilton Capital Management, which sought to challenge a lower court's order regarding the deposition of Peter de Putron, a nonparty involved in the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing the importance of obtaining relevant testimony in legal disputes, especially when it involves international parties.
The parties involved in this case are Dorilton Capital Management LLC, the plaintiffs, and Stilus LLC, the defendants. The dispute centers around the termination of contracts between the two parties. Dorilton Capital Management claimed that Stilus LLC's performance was unsatisfactory, which led to the termination of their agreements. The case escalated to the appellate court after a lower court ruled on the discovery process, particularly regarding the deposition of Peter de Putron, who is based in the United Kingdom.
The lower court, presided over by Justice Andrew Borrok, had granted Stilus LLC's motion to produce Peter de Putron for deposition. This decision required the defendants to submit a Letter of Request to the Royal Court in Jersey, United Kingdom, to facilitate the deposition process. The court's ruling was based on the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, which governs international discovery.
The Appellate Division, which included Justices Moulton, Gesmer, Higgitt, Michael, and Chan, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court stated, "when discovery is sought from a nonparty in a foreign jurisdiction... application of the . . . Convention . . . is virtually compulsory." This means that when a party seeks evidence from someone located in a country that is part of the Hague Convention, they must follow specific procedures to obtain that evidence.
The court also highlighted the importance of the deposition in this case, noting that de Putron's testimony was necessary to address crucial issues regarding the termination of the contracts. The ruling stated, "the requested deposition testimony was necessary to address a crucial issue in this case, and that a Letter of Request was therefore appropriate." This underscores the court's recognition of the relevance of de Putron's involvement in the dispute and the need for his testimony to clarify the circumstances surrounding the contract termination.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving international discovery. It reinforces the necessity for parties to comply with the Hague Convention when seeking evidence from nonparties located abroad. The decision also emphasizes that courts will consider the relevance and necessity of the information sought when determining whether to allow such depositions.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate parties involved. It sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar situations in the future, particularly in cases where crucial evidence is located outside the United States. Legal practitioners will need to be aware of these procedures and the importance of following international treaties when pursuing discovery from foreign jurisdictions.
As for what comes next, it is possible that Dorilton Capital Management may seek further appeals or clarification on specific aspects of the ruling. However, the court's decision stands as a clear directive on the process for obtaining international depositions. There are no indications in the court filing that a related case is pending.