A New York Supreme Court judge has ruled on critical issues surrounding deposition procedures in the case of Rodriguez v. Security USA, Inc., Index No. 100035/2025. The decision, made on March 6, 2026, by Justice Ronald Castorina Jr., addresses disputes over how depositions should be recorded and who should bear the costs associated with them. This ruling is significant for both the plaintiff, Andre V. Rodriguez, and the defendants, Security USA, Inc. and Rami Hahitti, as it sets clear guidelines for the ongoing litigation.
The case began when Rodriguez, representing himself, filed a lawsuit against Security USA and Hahitti, alleging defamation. The disagreement has escalated into a series of motions regarding how depositions—sworn testimonies taken before a trial—should be conducted. The court's ruling aims to resolve these disputes and facilitate the progress of the case.
Background
Andre V. Rodriguez initiated this legal action against Security USA, Inc. and Rami Hahitti after claiming he was harmed by defamatory statements made by the defendants. Rodriguez is proceeding without an attorney, known as pro se, which can complicate legal proceedings due to the lack of legal expertise.
The case reached the New York Supreme Court after Rodriguez and the defendants were unable to agree on the procedures for taking depositions. Rodriguez sought to record the depositions using audio or audiovisual methods, while the defendants insisted on using a certified stenographic court reporter. This disagreement led to multiple motions filed by both parties, prompting the court to intervene.
The Ruling
In his ruling, Judge Castorina addressed several key issues regarding the deposition process. He underscored the importance of having a clear and reliable record of depositions, stating, "Depositions constitute one of the principal discovery devices..." The court determined that all depositions must be conducted before a stenographic court reporter, ensuring an official and accurate record of the testimony.
The judge also clarified the allocation of costs associated with depositions. He ruled that the party noticing the deposition is responsible for arranging and paying for the stenographic reporter and the transcript. He noted, "Poor person status does not entitle a litigant to compel an adversary to finance the prosecution of the action," emphasizing that financial hardship does not shift the burden of deposition costs to the defendants.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the ongoing litigation. By establishing that depositions must be recorded by a stenographic reporter, the court aims to prevent future disputes over the accuracy and admissibility of recorded testimony. Additionally, the decision clarifies that the financial responsibility for deposition costs lies with the party requesting the deposition, which may impact how Rodriguez approaches the next steps in his case.
The court also set a deadline for the completion of depositions, allowing ninety days for all depositions to be noticed, scheduled, and completed. This timeline is intended to expedite the discovery process and avoid further delays in the case. The court emphasized that failure to meet this deadline could result in waiving the right to conduct depositions.
What's Next
Following this ruling, the parties are required to comply with the court's directives and complete the depositions within the specified timeframe. There is also a compliance conference scheduled for June 9, 2026, to ensure that both parties adhere to the court's orders. Should either party wish to appeal this decision or seek further relief, they must do so within the parameters set by the court.