Memorandum Opinion and Order: Dubai Islamic Bank v. Citibank

Transcription

1. Dubai Islamic Bank v . Citibank THEODORE H. KATZ, United States Magistrate Judge. This case involves a banking relationship gone sour. Plaintiff Dubai Islamic Bank ("DIB") and Defendant Citibank entered an agreement in 1975 that included, inter alia, the establishment of a correspondent account by DIB in Citibank's New York office. Plaintiff alleges that Citibank had a duty to safeguard DIB's correspondent account by adhering to anti-money laundering procedures and so-called "know your customer" rules. Citibank's alleged dereliction of these and other obligations, DIB claims, led to the unauthorized transfer of more than $151,000,000 from DIB's correspondent account. These fraudulent transfers were, it is alleged, the handiwork of a group of international financial terrorists led by one Foutanga Dit Babani Sissoko, to whose accounts the stolen money was credited. Because Citibank allegedly "slept," as counsel for DIB has put it, the fraud proceeded unchecked for over two years, from late 1995 to early 1998. The initial Complaint alleged Citibank's liability for DIB's losses on numerous legal grounds, some of which were dismissed for failure to state a claim. The causes of action that survive include those based on negligence, unjust enrichment, and Article 4A of New York's Uniform Commercial Code. In defending the case, Citibank has emphasized the complicity of various high-ranking DIB officers in the alleged scheme to defraud. Citibank points out that criminal investigations in Dubai, conducted by Dubai law enforcement agencies with the assistance of KPMG, which performed an independent audit, led to the convictions of a number of officers and other DIB employees for their active roles in the fraud. Apparently, authorizations for many, if not all, of the fraudulent transfers out of DIB's account were issued by DIB's own executives. A more complete summary of the nature of this action and the facts alleged in the Complaint may be found in Judge Berman's opinion regarding Citibank's motion to dismiss. See Dubai Islamic Bank v. Citibank, N.A., 126 F. Supp.2d 659, 662-64 (S.D.N Y 2000). DIB is currently seeking leave to file an amended complaint. Presently before the Court is the application of Citibank for an order directing Plaintiff to produce certain witnesses for deposition, and the corresponding application of DIB for a protective order regarding those witnesses. Citibank seeks to depose, in New York, each of ten employees of DIB, whom it contends may be compelled to appear for deposition by virtue of their status as officers, directors, or managing agents of DIB. DIB contends that none of the ten employees, all of whom live and work in Dubai, may be compelled to appear for deposition under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DIB also advances numerous equitable concerns that it believes militate against its employees' being required to travel to New York. DIB therefore requests that Citibank be required to take discovery of certain witnesses in Dubai, through letters rogatory or otherwise; that Citibank take depositions of certain other witnesses in Dubai or London (the latter at Citibank's expense, and only "if DIB is able to convince" the witnesses to travel to London); and that Citibank be barred altogether from deposing certain
2. other witnesses . (Letter of Frank C. Welzer, Esq. (an attorney for DIB), May 3, 2002 ("Welzer May 3, 2002 Let."), at 1-2.) Citibank has issued letters rogatory to depose in Dubai some of these witnesses, as well as other witnesses living in Dubai who are not the subject of the instant motions. Citibank maintains, and the Court agrees, that these letters do not prejudice its right to seek depositions by the more conventional means available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court, 482 U.S. 522, 536, 107 S.Ct. 2542, 2551-52 (1987) ("[T]he [Hague] Convention was intended as a permissive supplement, not a pre-emptive replacement, for other means of obtaining evidence located abroad.") Moreover, whether the letters rogatory will even prove availing remains an open question. The issue of the deposition of DIB employees in New York has been the subject of several conferences and voluminous submissions to this Court. At the March 29, 2002, conference, the Court determined that it was unable to decide the status of the employees in question based on the record before it, and ordered DIB to produce an affidavit from a high-level employee of DIB detailing the responsibilities and status within DIB of each of the ten proposed deponents, as well as the reasons why each employee could not be compelled to appear for deposition in New York. The Court has received this document (Supplement Declaration of A.R. Ellison in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order ("Ellison Decl."), as well as the parties' subsequent submissions in response thereto (Letter of D. Scott Tucker, Esq. (an attorney for Citibank), Apr. 25, 2002 ("Tucker Apr. 25, 2002 Let."); Welzer May 3, 2002 Let.) In deciding the instant applications, the Court has also reviewed the parties' earlier submissions and accompanying exhibits. Until his recent death, Mr. Ellison was an advisor to the Executive Committee of DIB. DISCUSSION I. Governing Legal Standards Under Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a specific officer, director, or managing agent of a corporate party may be compelled to give testimony pursuant to a notice of deposition. A corporate employee or agent who does not qualify as an officer, director, or managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice. See, e.g., United States v. Afram Lines (USA), Ltd., 159 F.R.D. 408, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Sugarhill Records Ltd. v. Motown Record Corp., 105 F.R.D. 166, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); DeNoto v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 16 F.R.D. 567, 567 (S.D.N Y 1954). Such an employee is treated as any other non-party witness, and must be subpoenaed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; or, if the witness is overseas, the procedures of the Hague Convention or other applicable treaty must be utilized. See Afram Lines, 159 F.R.D. at 413; see also In re Honda Am. Motor Co., 168 F.R.D. 535, 540 (D. Md. 1996) (citing Afram Lines).
3. "The test for a managing agent is not formulaic." Boss Mfg. Co. v. Hugo Boss AG, No. 97 Civ. 8495 (SHS) (MHD), 1999 WL 20828, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 1999). Rather, the question of whether a person is a managing agent, and therefore subject to a notice of deposition, is answered pragmatically and on a fact-specific basis. See 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2103, at 39 (2d ed. 1994); see also Afram Lines, 159 F.R.D. at 413 ("Because of the vast variety of factual circumstances to which the concept must be applied, the standard . . . remains a functional one to be determined largely on a case-by-case basis.") (quoting Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Webster, 802 F.2d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted)). "The term `managing agent' should not be given too literal an interpretation," Tomingas v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 45 F.R.D. 94, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1968), and "[a]s in all matters appertaining to discovery, it is the ends of justice that are to be served." Church of Scientology, 802 F.2d at 1453. With these principles in mind, courts in this district have generally considered five factors in determining whether an individual is a managing agent: 1) whether the individual is invested with general powers allowing him to exercise judgment and discretion in corporate matters; 2) whether the individual can be relied upon to give testimony, at his employer's request, in response to the demands of the examining party; 3) whether any person or persons are employed by the corporate employer in positions of higher authority than the individual designated in the area regarding which the information is sought by the examination; 4) the general responsibilities of the individual respecting the matters involved in the litigation; and 5) whether the individual can be expected to identify with the interests of the corporation. Sugarhill Records, 105 F.R.D. at 170 (internal quotations and citations omitted); accord Afram Lines, 159 F.R.D. at 413; Zurich Ins. Co. v. Essex Crane Rental Corp., No. 90 Civ. 2263 (SWK) (JCF), 1991 WL 12133, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 1991); see also Boss Mfg., 1999 WL 20828, at *3 (recognizing that although the number of factors generally considered by courts ranges from three to five, courts in this district have considered the five factors listed above). Although typically a corporation cannot be required to produce a former officer or agent for deposition, see, e.g., Boss Mfg., 1999 WL 20828, at *2 (stating that the rationale for this is that the corporation lacks control over the former agent), this rule is not woodenly applied. Rather, courts within and without this district have adopted a "practical" approach "that focuses not only on the formal connection between the witness and the party at the time of the deposition, but also on their functional relationships. " See Afram Lines, 159 F.R.D. at 414 (adopting flexible approach but finding no managing agent status on facts); see also Independent Prods. Corp. v. Loew's, Inc., 24 F.R.D. 19, 26 (S.D.N.Y. 1959) (upholding deposition notices of former officers of plaintiffs who stood "ready to serve plaintiffs" despite severance of formal ties); Curry v. States Marine Corp. of Del., 16 F.R.D. 376, 377 (S.D.N.Y. 1954) (upholding deposition notice of master in charge of vessel at time of accident despite his current reduced status as chief mate of another one of defendant's
4. vessels ); Smith v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., No. 00-30141, 2001 WL 1747184, at *2 (D. Mass. Aug. 26, 2001) (finding that former district manager, whose conduct as such was "at the heart of Plaintiff's claims," remained a managing agent despite current reduced status as store manager); Libbey Glass, Inc. v. Oneida, Ltd., 197 F.R.D. 342, 351 (N. D. Ohio 1999) ("In any event, it is clear that the deponent need not have a formal association with the corporation to be deemed its managing agent. . . . Likewise, the deponent need not be associated with the corporation at the time of his deposition."); Alcan Int'l Ltd. v. S.A. Day Mfg. Co., 176 F.R.D. 75, 79 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) (requiring deposition of retired officer with unique knowledge of subject matter of litigation); Calgene, Inc. v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., No. Civ. S93-0195, 1993 WL 645999, at *8 (E. D. Cal. Aug. 23, 1993) (holding that consultant and advisory board member who identified with interests of company and who had "power regarding the subject matter of the litigation" was managing agent); Boston Diagnostics Dev. Corp. v. Kollsman Mfg. Co., 123 F.R.D. 415, 416 (D. Mass. 1988) (ordering deposition of current employee based on his managing agent status at the time of the transactions at issue in the lawsuit); but see Reed Paper Co. v. Procter Gamble Distrib, Co., 144 F.R.D. 2, 4-5 nn. 2-3 (D. Me. 1992) (criticizing Boston Diagnostics). Summarizing this pragmatic approach, the D.C. Circuit has observed, Courts have accorded managing agent status to individuals who no longer exercised authority over the actions in question (and even to individuals who no longer held any position of authority in a corporation), so long as those individuals retained some role in the corporation or at least maintained interests consonant with rather than adverse to its interests. Church of Scientology, 802 F.2d at 1456. Finally, although the examining party bears the burden of establishing the status of the witness, see Sugarhill Records, 105 F.R.D. at 170, the exact nature of this burden is not perfectly clear, see Boss Mfg., 1999 WL 20828, at *4 ("[I]t is not entirely clear whether the burden [of establishing the deponent's status] is one of production or persuasion or both."); Afram Lines, 159 F.R.D. at 414 (suggesting that the burden may vary depending on whether the examining party has had complete discovery on the issue or whether the deponent is an employee of the opposing party). In any event, the burden is "modest," Boss Mfg., 1999 WL 20828, at *4, and all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the examining party,Afram Lines, 159 F.R.D. at 414; Sugarhill Records, 105 F.R.D. at 171. Thus, the examining party satisfies its burden when it produces "enough evidence to show that there is at least a close question whether the proposed deponent is the managing agent." Afram Lines, 159 F.R.D. at 413;accord Boss Mfg., 1999 WL 20828, at *4 (citing Afram Lines). This approach permits discovery to proceed, while deferring until trial the ultimate question of whether the witness's testimony is binding on the corporation. See Afram Lines, 159 F.R.D. at 413-14; Zurich Ins. Co., 1991 WL 12133, at *2; Sugarhill Records, 105 F.R.D. at 171; see also Federal Practice and Procedure § 2103 ("The determination of whether a particular person is a `managing agent' will be made by the trial court when the deposition is sought to be introduced. . . ."). The witness's deposition testimony itself may well provide the best evidence of his or her status. See Afram Lines, 159 F.R.D. 41314 (stating that it is proper to defer final determination of managing agent status until trial since at that time examining party will have had full discovery regarding that status); Boss Mfg., 1999 WL 20828, at *4 ("[A] determination that the witness is a managing agent may be made
5. provisionally . . . while awaiting the deposition testimony before determining whether the witness is an agent for purposes of binding the corporation."); Hughes Bros., Inc. v. Callanan Rd. Improvement Co., 41 F.R.D. 450, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (noting that a showing of managing agent status for the purposes of compelling a deposition "might well be overcome by the testimonial evidence produced at th[at] very examination") II. Status of the Ten DIB Employees Keeping the above principles in mind, the Court will now addressseriatim the status of the employees Citibank is seeking to depose. 1. Valiyakatt Ahmed Khalid Mr. Khalid's status as a managing agent regarding the events relevant to this litigation is not seriously in. doubt. Numerous documents, including DIB's own personnel file, indicate that Mr. Khalid was Head of the Foreign Department during the time period relevant to this litigation. (Tucker Apr. 25, 2002 Let. at 3-4.) DIB disputes that this was his title, but concedes that he was "the person responsible for interbank transfers (foreign exchange) in the foreign section." (Ellison Decl. at 2.) As such, he was seemingly vested with significant enough responsibility and discretion to be considered a managing agent, even if he did not hold the specific title of head of the department. In any event, Citibank has produced more than enough information to make his status as department head, much less his substantial responsibilities "respecting the matters involved in the litigation," a close question that should be resolved in favor of Mr. Khalid's deposition's taking place. The Court further notes that for all its focus on Mr. Khalid's title, DIB does not even appear to dispute that Mr. Khalid's responsibilities in his former position rendered him an officer or managing agent. The Court finds further justification for resolving doubts in favor of Citibank on this issue given the inconsistent representations that have been made by DIB regarding Mr. Khalid's status. As late as last August, counsel for DIB represented to Citibank and to this Court that DIB was actively engaging in both civil and criminal proceedings against Mr. Khalid, when in fact, DIB had issued certificates of release against Mr. Khalid and two others, Messrs. Al Rais and Hassan, a year earlier. (Affidavit of D. Scott Tucker, Esq., in Support of Application for Order Directing Plaintiff to Produce Certain Witnesses for Depositions, Dec. 20, 2001 ("Tucker Aff."), Ex. A at 44, 46.) Only Citibank's independent research led to the correction of this error. DIB resists producing Mr. Khalid for deposition on the grounds that he is merely a clerk in the foreign section of the Operations Department. Mr. Ellison represents that Khalid was demoted from his previous position as "person responsible for interbank transfers" because of his involvement in the fraud. and because of the criminal proceedings against him. (Ellison Decl. at 2.) Mr. Ellison also states that Mr. Khalid no longer has any signature authority (whereas previously he had "B" authority). Mr. Khalid was convicted of fraud in the Dubai Court of First Instance, yet later had his conviction overturned (along with two other DIB employees, whom Citibank also seeks to depose, see infra).
6. DIB 's records indicate that his position was changed to "First Banker" (Tucker Aff., Ex. I), a term that may or may not be synonymous with "clerk," but which Mr. Ellison does not explain. Although the parties dispute whether DIB posted bail for Mr. Khalid, there is no dispute about the more significant fact that DIB waived its civil case against Mr. Khalid and maintained him in its employ, and that the appellate court relied in part on these circumstances in overturning Mr. Khalid's conviction. Moreover, in addition to retaining Mr. Khalid as an employee, DIB continues to pay him the same salary and to maintain him at the same grade, a fact Mr. Ellison acknowledges, albeit backhandedly. Mr. Ellison states that this rather remarkable situation — the bank's retention, at the same position grade and salary, of an employee admittedly involved in a massive fraud scheme against it — results from DIB's "staff policies," which do not contain "any provision for demotion by way of reduction in grade, or by reduction in salary or allowances." (Id.) The Court is persuaded that Mr. Khalid may be considered a managing agent for the purpose of noticing his deposition. The fact that DIB retained Mr. Khalid in its employ, waived its civil claims against him, and assisted in his escaping criminal liability, despite his undisputed involvement in a quarter-billion dollar fraud against it, strongly suggests that Mr. Khalid is greatly indebted to DIB, and thus remains subject to its control. That his interests remain aligned with DIB is supported by his continuing to draw the same salary and enjoy the same position grade as he did prior to the events in question. Moreover, DIB cannot be heard to claim that Mr. Khalid is not authorized to testify for DIB, when DIB admits that it retains him precisely for that reason. Mr. Ellison explains that DIB retains Mr. Khalid because, as a nonnational of the United Arab Emirates, his right to remain in Dubai under his employment visa depends entirely on his sponsorship by DIB. If terminated, "Khalid would return to his home in . . . India . . . and his testimony would be lost to DIB, Citibank, and other interested parties." (Ellison Decl. at 2-3 (emphasis added).) This admission strongly suggests that, even if he no longer retains a position of authority, Khalid, who has been employed by DIB since 1975, remains "ready to serve" DIB,Loew's, 24 F.R.D. at 26, and that he has "maintained interests consonant with rather than adverse to [DIB's] interests," Church of Scientology, 802 F.2d at 1456; see also Afram Lines, 159 F.R.D. at 415 ("[Am agent's history of cooperating with a party in discovery may be probative of the party's ability to rely on the agent to testify.") The purpose of the general rule against requiring former officers to testify — namely, "to protect the party from the admissions of disgruntled former officers and agents," Fed. Practice and Procedure § 2103 — will thus not be frustrated in this case. As the cases cited above demonstrate, "this principle has been applied in light of its purpose. When the person involved retains such a connection with the corporation as to be loyal to it, his or her deposition has been considered that of the corporation, and the same result had been reached when the person, even though no longer a managing agent, is still in the employee of the party." Id. Accordingly, this Court holds that Mr. Khalid is a managing agent subject to deposition by notice. 2. Mohammed Abdullah Ali Al Rais
7. DIB also claims there are several additional problems with taking Mr . Khalid's deposition in New York. "These concerns, as well as all such non-status-related objections respecting other witnesses, are discussed below, in the next section. With respect to the current motion, the issues concerning the status of Mohammed Abdullah Al Rais are substantially similar to those concerning Mr. Khalid. Mr. Al Rais was Chief of Cashiers during the period involved in this litigation. (Ellison Decl. at 4.) Like Mr. Khalid, Mr. Al Rais was subsequently demoted from his position of high authority, to a clerical position, following his involvement in the criminal fraud. (His current position title is apparently "First Banker." (Tucker Aff., Ex. J.)) Like Mr. Khalid, Mr. Al Rais was convicted in the Dubai Court of First Instance but subsequently exonerated on appeal, in part due to DIB's having absolved him of civil liability and maintained him in its employ. Mr. Al Rais also continues to enjoy the same salary and grade as he did prior to the fraud. Finally, as with Mr. Khalid, Citibank has offered significant, apparently unrefuted evidence of Mr. Al Rais's importance to the transactions at issue in this dispute. (Tucker Apr. 25, 2002 Let. at 7-8 citations therein.) Indeed, Mr. Al Rais's extensive involvement in many of pertinent events in this case is corroborated by Mr. Ellison's representation that Mr. Al Rais has testified more than twenty times in related matters in the Dubai courts. In presenting Mr. Al Rais's former position as an undisputed fact, the Court relies on Mr. Ellison's sworn declaration, along with the evidence submitted by Citibank, and not DIB counsel's unsworn, belated, and equivocal statement that "we now understand that Mr. Al Rais did not hold the position of `Chief Cashier' at DIB, but that the Chief Cashier responsible for the safe and its contents during the period of the fraud was Mohammed Ayyoub." (Welzer May 3, 2002 Let. at 6.) Moreover, as with Mr. Khalid, DIB's perpetually shifting representations concerning Mr. Al Rais raise more questions than they answer, and persuade this Court of the wisdom of resolving doubts regarding the proposed deponents' status in favor of Citibank. In light of his obvious importance to the matters at issue and his equally clear position of authority, and for substantially the same reasons as stated above with respect to Mr. Khalid, this Court finds Mr. Al Rais is a managing agent of DIB who therefore is subject to deposition by notice. In so ruling, the Court has taken into account the additional reason proffered by Mr. Ellison why Mr. Al Rais may not testify on DIB's behalf, namely, that Mr. Al Rais is attempting to find a new job and "would happily leave DIB tomorrow . . . [but] he needs to support his family and to finish funding his pension." (Ellison Decl. at 5.) Putting aside the fact that this hearsay statement is not competent evidence, the Court notes that this is an insufficient ground for defeating managing agent status. The near universal need to earn income and provide for one's retirement does not imply disloyalty to one's employer, and does not change one's status within the organization (just as, conversely, an independently wealthy low-level functionary would not become a managing agent subject to deposition by notice merely because he loved his job).
8. 3 . Sayed Najamul Hassan Like Messrs. Khalid and Al Rais, Mr. Hassan was convicted for his apparently significant personal involvement in the frauds, exonerated on appeal after being given a release of liability by DIB, and retained as an employee of DIB. Unlike Khalid and Al Rais, however, Mr. Hassan was a mere clerk in the Foreign Department at the time of the events in question (and remains one now). Citibank does not contest this fact, but contends that Mr. Hassan's "role in the fraud transcended that of a clerk because he was actively involved in forging hundreds of fraudulent documents directly related to the transfers at issue in this case." (Tucker Apr. 25, 2002 Let. at 10.) The Court agrees that Mr. Hassan's importance to the events in question appears supported by the record; unfortunately for Citibank, however, this is not the test for managing agent. There is no evidence that Mr. Hassan's position gave him any independent discretion, and even his role in the fraud appears to be that of a facilitator and subordinate. See Libbey Glass, 197 F.R.D. at 351 (individual who "may well have played an important role" in events giving rise to lawsuit was not managing agent because he "facilitated, but did not control" those events) Mr. Ellison states that Mr. Hassan was prosecuted "for criminal breach of trust and practising black magic." (Ellison Decl. at 5.) Accordingly, Mr. Hassan is not an officer, director, or managing agent, and thereby is not subject to deposition by notice. 4. Mohammed Abul Quashem Fazar Rahman Mr. Rahman is undisputedly Assistant Head or Deputy Head of the Foreign Department, and was so at the time of the fraud. DIB does not contest his high-ranking status in the bank, but seeks to avoid his deposition on the grounds that "it would not be a prudent use of time" because Mr. Rahman allegedly lacks recollection of the events in question. (Welzer May 3, 2002 Let. at 7.) DIB states that he was not "formally" interviewed by either the Dubai authorities or KPMG, and argues that this tends to show his lack of importance to the events in question. Nevertheless, Citibank states that its primary interest in deposing Mr. Rahman does not stem from his alleged direct involvement in the fraud. Rather, Citibank maintains that it seeks to learn of the procedures, operations, and practices of the Foreign Department, of which Mr. Rahman was Deputy Head, and which sent all of the wire transfers at issue in this case. Moreover, there remain questions about Mr. Rahman's direct involvement and knowledge in these transfers, a fact suggested by the independent auditor's report, which concluded that it was "important" to interview him to ascertain his role in the fraud. Accordingly, DIB's motion for a protective order regarding Mr. Rahman is denied.
9. 5 . Mohammad Sadiq Mohammad Ali According to Mr. Ellison, Mr. Sadiq is a "supervisor" in the foreign section. (Ellison Decl. at 8.) The independent auditor's report submitted by Citibank lists Mr. Sadiq as Mr. Khalid's Deputy in the Foreign Department. Mr. Ellison states that Mr. Sadiq merely performs "routine work . . . including checking and signing vouchers for incoming and outgoing remittances, checking and signing outward Telexes and SWIFT messages. . . ." (Ellison Decl. at 7.) Mr. Ellison admits that Mr. Sadiq has "B" level signature authority, but downplays the significance of such authority. Mr. Ellison states that "A" and "B" level signatories are "back-office workers empowered to complete the paperwork for transactions approved elsewhere." (Id. at 8.) Mr. Ellison notes that Mr. Sadiq signs between 200 and 250 transfer vouchers per day, and that he has no recollection of any particular events or transactions with respect to the fraud. Finally, Mr. Ellison notes that Mr. Sadiq was not interviewed as part of the official criminal investigation in Dubai, nor was he interviewed by KPMG, although KPMG did indicate he might be a useful witness. Citibank argues that Mr. Ellison's assessment of the significance of signature authority is contradicted by Mr. Ellison's own answers to previous interrogatories, in which he stated, "For persons associated with DIB with duties to act for DIB, see signature book to be produced." (Tucker Apr. 25, 2002 Let. at 13.) Citibank also points out that the signature book itself states that officials listed therein are "authorized to sign on behalf of the bank" with respect to "financial commitments or disposal of Dubai Islamic Bank assets." (Id.) Additionally, Citibank notes that many of DIB's most important officers and directors, including the chairman of the board and the CEO, are included in the signature book, a fact that obviously undermines the assertion that such signatories are merely "back-office employees." Finally, Citibank also points to evidence that Mr. Sadiq may have been centrally involved in the fraud, inasmuch as he was Khalid's deputy and may also have received instruction from Mr. Ayoub. (Id. at 13-14.) The Court agrees with Citibank that DIB's characterization of the significance of such signature authority is contradictory, if not implausible. From the language of the signature book itself, as well as Mr. Ellison's representation in his interrogatory, the signatories appear to be vested with the type of discretion and authority that come with managing agent status. On the other hand, the fact that Mr. Sadiq signs upwards of 200 transfers a day suggests that each individual act of signing may not entail such a great exercise of judgment and discretion after all. In sum, the record before the Court is sparse and ambiguous on this score. More significant, however, is the fact that Citibank has pointed to little else that tends to show a high level of authority on the part of Mr. Sadiq either in general or with respect to the matters in this litigation. Even the KPMG report, on which Citibank primarily relies, suggests that Mr. Sadiq's role, if any, was likely that of subordinate, both to Mr. Ayoub and to Mr. Khalid, his direct supervisor. Thus, even if Mr. Sadiq had involvement in and recollection of the transactions in question, which he denies having, his status does not appear to be that of officer and managing agent. As stated, the test for managing agent does not turn on one's mere possession of relevant information. Rather, the witness must possess authority to speak and act on behalf of the corporation. The Court is not prepared to find that Mr. Sadiq's signature authority, standing more or less alone, confers him with such authority.
10. Accordingly , the Court finds Mr. Sadiq is not a managing agent subject to deposition by notice, and grants DIB's motion for a protective order with respect to Mr. Sadiq. 6. Rafat Karim Ahmed Karim However, the Court notes that if Citibank remains committed to taking discovery from Mr. Sadiq, he apparently remains on good terms with DIB and thus, most likely, is amenable to DIB's directions. DIB has in fact offered to try to persuade Mr. Sadiq to appear for deposition (albeit in London). The Court therefore suggests that, in the interest of compromise, DIB try to make Mr. Sadiq available for deposition in Dubai, in the event counsel for Citibank travels there. According to Mr. Ellison, Mr. Karim is a "supervisor" in the communications section and has "limited decision-making authority." (Ellison Decl. at 8.) Mr. Ellison admits that he has "B" level signature authority, and that he works with the SWIFT and Telex systems apparently at issue in this litigation. Mr. Ellison states that he reports to the department manager, who in turn reports to the Operations Manager. In response, Citibank notes that the auditor's report identifies Mr. Karim as an "officer in [DIB's] Foreign Remittance Department," and indicates that he monitored DIB's correspondent accounts, such as the one that DIB held with Citibank. (Tucker Apr. 25, 2002 Let. at 14.) Citibank also notes that DIB's records indicate that Mr. Karim is a "Senior Banker," and that he signed many of the transfers at issue in this case. (Id.) DIB replies that the reference in the KPMG report to Mr. Karim as an "officer" is an example of the inaccuracy of the report (which was critical of DIB), and should thus be discounted. (Welzer May 3, 2002 Let at 9.) The foregoing persuades this Court that Mr. Karim's status as an officer or managing agent is at least a close call, and that he should thus be subject to deposition by notice. His signature authority and supervisory position indicate that he holds general powers to exercise judgment and discretion, that he can be relied on to give testimony, and that he identifies with the interests of DIB. Although he may not be the highest ranking official in his department, which weighs against his being found a managing agent, this factor is counterbalanced by his seeming direct supervisory authority over many of transactions at issue in this case. Accordingly, under the five-factor test, the Court finds that Mr. Karim is a managing agent who may be required to appear for deposition by notice on DIB's behalf. 7. Sayed Kamel Mansour According to Mr. Ellison, Mr. Mansour is a clerk in the General Accounts department, who has never had signature authority and whose job entails "the purely clerical function of taking figures from the general ledger trial balance and inserting those numbers into slots on the proforma for the U.A.E. Central Bank returns." (Ellison Decl. at 9.) Mr. Ellison also affirms that Mr. Mansour at all relevant times performed his duties solely according to instructions he received from his superior, Mr. El Refaie. In addition, Mr. Ellison states that Mr. Mansour has "absolutely no memory of Mr. El Refaie ever indicating to him that anything should be covered up," despite statements in the KPMG report suggesting otherwise. (Id. at 9.)
11. Citibank states that contrary to Mr . Ellison's assertion, Mr. Mansour is listed in DIB's signature book as having "B" signature authority. Citibank also notes that DIB's July 2001 list of employees describes Mr. Mansour not as a clerk but as an accountant. In addition, Citibank points to portions of the KPMG report suggesting that Mr. Mansour was directly involved in both the fraud and the alleged coverup. Citibank also notes that KPMG indicated that Mr. Mansour "need[ed] to be interviewed" regarding his knowledge of the fraud, inasmuch as he was "one of the signatories" on a particular accounting voucher. (Tucker Apr. 25, 2002 Let at 15-16.) Other than his disputed signature authority, there is scant evidence suggesting that Mr. Mansour is or was in a position of discretion and significant responsibility. Unlike others with signature authority, Mr. Mansour does not seem to have now, or have had, a managerial role in the company generally, or with respect to the events at issue. Even accepting that his title is "accountant" and not "clerk," this title does not suggest managing agent status. Moreover, it is apparently not contested that his role in the events was a subordinate one, inasmuch as he took orders from Mr. Refaie. Regardless of whether the content of the orders included a direction to cover up the fraud, Mr. Mansour was still acting at Mr. Refaie's behest. As stated above, the mere fact that Mr. Mansour may have been directly implicated in the matters involved in this litigation, and thus have important information, does not alter his status. Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Mansour is not an officer, director, or managing agent subject to notice of deposition. In the interest of compromise, DIB has offered to provide Citibank with a written response to any inquiries it may have of Mr. Mansour. Accordingly, Citibank shall promptly provide DIB with such inquiries if it wishes to avail itself of this procedure, or, alternately, should attempt to arrange for Mr. Mansour's deposition in Dubai. 8. Ibrahim Eissa Lootah Mr. Ellison states that, upon information and belief, Mr. Lootah, "while technically still an `employee' of DIB, has virtually no responsibilities at DIB. He was demoted from branch manager of DIB's Al Souk branch almost immediately after discovery of the fraud and now he does not have any real responsibilities. He has no signature authority. . . . [H]e does very little (if any) actual work for DIB. . . ." (Ellison Decl. at 9-10.) Mr. Ellison provides no explanation of why Mr. Lootah remains an employee of DIB despite his having been demoted, apparently on account of involvement in the fraud. On the other hand, Mr. Welzer, one of DIB's attorneys, states that "DIB does not believe that Mr. Lootah was involved in the fraud, although he (like many others) was under the cloud of suspicion that was initially cast following the discovery of the massive fraud in 1998." (Welzer May 3, 2002 Let. at 11.) Citibank points to the apparently undisputed fact that Mr. Lootah was a high-level officer of the bank during the relevant period. Mr. Lootah had "A" level signature authority, and, according to DIB's counsel's own representation, was "one of eight branch managers who reported to an executive committee made up of the most senior officers at DIB." (Welzer May 3, 2002 Let. at
12. 10 .) Though Mr. Welzer offers this as an explanation of why Mr. Lootah was not a senior official, it appears to the Court to indicate just the opposite. Regardless of whom he reported to, Mr. Lootah obviously had substantial managerial authority over a significant segment of the bank, given his position as head of a branch. His independent discretion and judgment are further indicated by his having the same level of signature authority as DIB's CEO. (Tucker Apr. 25, 2002 Let. at 16.) Moreover, it is not clear that he did not play some role in the events at issue in this litigation, though what exactly he may have done remains unclear. Finally, as with Messrs. Al Rais and Khalid, his continued employment with DIB, after coming under a "cloud of suspicion" for involvement in the fraud, indicates an ongoing identity of interest between Mr. Lootah and DIB. As Citibank notes, it is bizarre indeed that DIB would retain an employee, apparently at a high salary, for four years and running, who was demoted because of suspected participation in a quarter-billion-dollar fraud. Such a situation cries out for an explanation, which has not been forthcoming. The Court notes that DIB's explanations for why Mr. Lootah is still employed are contradictory: on one hand, Mr. Ellison asserts that Mr. Lootah was demoted on account of the fraud; on the other, Mr. Welzer claims that DIB does not believe Mr. Lootah was even involved in the fraud. If Welzer's version is in fact the correct one, the Court is left to wonder why, or whether, Mr. Lootah was demoted at all. If he was demoted on account of involvement in the fraud, yet continues to be retained four years later, the Court can only infer that DIB, in light of such extraordinary magnanimity toward Mr. Lootah, continues to exercise control over him, and that it can rely on him to testify at its behest. In any event, the unexplained contradictions surrounding Mr. Lootah's current status, coupled with his previously high-level status, more than suffice to make Mr. Lootah's status a "close call," warranting his being subject to deposition by notice. 9. Fawzi Mohammed Lootah Mr. Ellison states that Mr. Lootah is a "supervisor" in the foreign Murabaha follow-up and collections department, but that he has neither "decision-making discretion" nor signature authority for financial transactions. (Ellison Decl. at 10.) Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Mr. Lootah was head of the Foreign Section during the relevant period. Citibank cites testimony of a DIB manager stating that Mr. Lootah supervised Mr. Khalid, and argues that Mr. Lootah therefore has highly relevant information regarding matters central to this litigation. (Tucker Apr. 25, 2002 Let. at 17-18.) Counsel for DIB asserts that Mr. Khalid was not under Mr. Lootah's supervision, a fact not addressed in Mr. Ellison's declaration. (Welzer May 3, 2002 Let. at 11.) In any event, Mr. Ellison states that Mr. Lootah had "very little, if any, actual involvement in the events at issue in this lawsuit" and that "[o]ther witnesses," whom he does not identify, have "specific and better knowledge" regarding the information relevant to this lawsuit. (Ellison Decl. at 10.) Mr. Ellison notes that the Dubai police and public prosecutor did not interview Mr. Lootah. Regardless of Mr. Lootah's role in the matters at issue, which the Court finds unclear at this point and thus a fact that should be resolved in favor of his examination, the other factors for determining managing agent status suggest that Mr. Lootah is such an agent. His former role as
13. department head clearly gave him substantial authority , and even now he retains a supervisory position. Moreover, even if he was not involved in the fraud, as DIB suggests he was not, the same lack of explanation for his apparent demotion, if indeed one has occurred, exists as in the case of Mr. Ibrahim Eissa Lootah. His continued employment by DIB suggests an identity of interests, and that he may relied on to testify at DIB's behest. Accordingly, the Court holds that Mr. Fawzi Lootah, as a managing agent, may be deposed on notice pursuant to the Federal Rules. However, given DIB's assertion that Mr. Lootah had little involvement in the events at issue and thus has little relevant information, the Court suggests that Mr. Lootah's deposition be scheduled for a time after the depositions of the other witnesses herein discussed. This Court's suggestion does not excuse DIB of its obligation to produce Mr. Lootah, but simply attempts to accommodate DIB by having Citibank depose Mr. Lootah only after determining that he may have information not otherwise obtained. This suggestion is not binding, and may be disregarded in the event that scheduling Mr. Lootah later rather than sooner becomes impracticable. 10. Mr. Zohair Al Rabi'i Mr. Al Rabi'i was the head of the Computer Department during the relevant time period. Citibank has pointed to documents, including the KPMG report, suggesting both that the computerized accounting systems may have been an important aspect of the fraud, and that Mr. Al Rabi'i may have instructed a subordinate, Chandra Shekar, to assist the former CEO in the fraud. (Tucker Apr. 25, 2002 Let. at 18-19.) Regardless of his role, given his status as department head, it seems relatively clear that his former position qualified Mr. Rabi'i as an officer or managing agent. As for his current position, Mr. Ellison's declaration simply states that he "works in the compliance department," without providing his title. (Ellison Decl. at 11.) Mr. Ellison states that "he does things like review daily transactions," and "doesn't implement things by his own volition; he merely recommends a course of action." (Id.) The Court finds these vague, conclusory assertions, which are sandwiched between a litany of equitable claims of why Mr. Al Rabi'i should not be forced to come to New York, unconvincing. Given his undisputed prior position as a department head, the Court is satisfied that the status of Mr. Al Rabi'i as a managing agent remains at least a close question, and that he can be expected to identify with DIB, and to testify at its request. Accordingly, he is subject to deposition by notice. DIB also argues that a former subordinate of Mr. Rabi'i, Mr. Shekar, should testify in his stead. Mr. Ellison asserts that Mr. Shekar was the "de facto head" of the IT department, and that he "performed most of the work" there. (Ellison Decl. at 11.) Nevertheless, it is undisputed that he has now left DIB, and thus cannot be deposed as an officer or managing agent. Although DIB has stated that it "might" be able to produce him in New York (id. at 11), Citibank correctly points out that his testimony would not constitute a party admission.
14. As a compromise , the Court offers DIB the following proposal: it may produce Mr. Shekar for deposition in New York, instead of Mr. Rabi'i, on condition that it stipulate to the admissibility at trial, as a party admission of DIB, of Mr. Shekar's deposition testimony. Such a stipulation is appropriate, given Mr. Ellison's representations that Mr. Shekar was the "de facto head" of the department — and thus had de facto managing agent status — and that Mr. Shekar stands ready to serve DIB upon its request. Further, this compromise attempts to accommodate both parties' interest in having the most knowledgeable witness deposed. If DIB does not consent to this procedure, it must produce Mr. Rabi'i for deposition, for the reasons stated above. Moreover, if Mr. Shekar is deposed and his testimony supports the contention that Mr. Rabi'i is a managing agent and may have relevant knowledge that Mr. Shekar lacks, the Court will entertain a renewed application for the deposition of Mr. Rabi'i. III. Location of Depositions For each proposed deponent, DIB has raised various equitable reasons why it believes he should not be required to appear in New York for a deposition. Citibank insists that any other solution but requiring these deponents to come to New York is both unfair and impracticable. The Court has considered the equities and the practicalities of the situation regarding each proposed witness, and, in its discretion, concludes that DIB has not overcome the presumption that a plaintiff who brings suit in a particular forum should be prepared to send its agents to be deposed there. As a general rule, a plaintiff who brings suit in a particular forum may not avoid appearing for examination in that forum. See, e.g., A.I.A. Holdings. S.A. v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 97 Civ. 4978 (LMM) (ABP), 2002 WL 1041356, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2002) ("[I]t is well settled that a plaintiff is ordinarily required to make him or herself available for a deposition in the jurisdiction in which the action is brought."); Daly v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 90 Civ. 5700 (MEL) (MHD), 1991 WL 33392, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 1991) (absent showing of substantial hardship, and "in view of the fact that plaintiff chose to file his lawsuit here rather than in Ireland, it is hardly unreasonable to expect that he make himself available in the district where he is litigating his million dollar claim"); Clem v. Allied Int'l, 102 F.R.D. 938, 939-40 (S.D.N Y 1984) (nonresident plaintiff who sues in Southern District of New York must appear for deposition here absent compelling circumstances); Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v. Steinway and Sons, 54 F.R.D. 280, 281 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) ("Since plaintiff has chosen this forum, it cannot impose upon defendant the extraordinary expense and burden of traveling to a foreign country to conduct a deposition except on a showing of burden and hardship to the plaintiff."); Michael C. Silberberg, Civil Practice in the Southern District of New York § 17.11 (2d ed. 2000) ("[T]he deposition of a plaintiff usually may be taken in the Southern District of New York notwithstanding the plaintiff's residence outside the district. The reason is that the plaintiff selected the Southern District as the forum for trial.") (collecting cases); cf. Sugarhill Records, 105 F.R.D. at 171 ("[Defendant] Motown is a large corporation and cannot seriously contend that travel on behalf of the corporation by one of its managing agents is unexpected or that such travel to New York for deposition imposes a severe burden on it."). In the end, the
15. decision as to the location of the deposition lies within the discretion of the court . See Sugarhill Records, 105 F.R.D. at 171; Federal Practice and Procedure § 2112. DIB attempts to avoid the normal rule on several grounds. Some of these grounds are common to all of the proposed deponents; some are specific to individual deponents. The Court will address the general objections first, then turn to the objections particular to individual deponents. DIB claims that many of the managing agents in question do not want to travel to the United States in general, and New York City in particular, in light of the perceived dangers related to the aftermath of events on September 11, 2001. Citibank contends that the risk for foreign travelers in New York is minimal, and in any event pales in comparison with the threat posed to Americans traveling in the Middle East. The Court agrees with Citibank that the dangers to each party are not completely symmetrical. There is no evidence that foreign visitors to New York face any threat — or at least any threat greater than that to New Yorkers in general. See A.I.A. Holdings, S.A. v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 97 Civ. 4978 (LMM) (ABP), 2002 WL 538833, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2002) ("To the extent that Omaya and Huda assert anxiety concerning traveling to New York, their anxieties are baseless. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that individuals of Middle-Eastern ancestry have been subject to acts of revenge since the mass murders of September 11."). On the other hand, the State Department has issued warnings to Americans traveling abroad in general, and to the Middle East in particular. (Tucker Apr. 25, 2002 Let., Exs. 2-3.) More importantly, the Court agrees with those courts that have concluded that whatever the increased dangers both in the United States and throughout the world, the U.S. judicial system remains open for business, and its normal operations cannot be upset by mere invocation of the tragedy of September 11. See In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., Misc. No. 99-197, MDL No. 1285, Memorandum Opinion Re: Deposition Locations, attached as Ex. C. to Letter of D. Scott Tucker, Esq., Jan. 10, 2002 ("Tucker Jan. 10, 2002 Let."), at 11 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2001) ("[W]orld events do not change the obligations of the foreign defendants with respect to this litigation."); Dean Foods Co. v. Eastman Chem. Co., No. C 00-4379, C 00-4402, Order Re Depositions, attached as Ex. D to Tucker Jan. 10, 2002 Let., at 3 (N. D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2001) ("The business of the United States continues, and part of that business is the conduct of litigation."); see also American Int'l Tel., Inc. v. Mony Travel Servs., Inc., 203 F.R.D. 153, 155 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("The Court can perceive no reason why Duran's alleged fear of flying should require someone else to take to the skies."). In the Mony Travel case, the court noted that post-September 11 excuses carried less weight where the party had been seeking to avoid appearing for deposition since before that date. See Mony Travel, 203 F.R.D. at 155. Though not prepared to conclude that DIB has intentionally sought to frustrate Citibank's legitimate discovery demands, the Court notes that Citibank had been attempting to depose many of the individuals in question since well before last September. In any event, the reluctance of nearly all of the proposed deponents to travel to the United States after September 11, 2001, as reported in the Ellison Affidavit, does not defeat DIB's obligation to produce them for deposition in New York.
16. DIB also claims that many of its witnesses cannot come to New York because of family obligations . In particular, many of its witnesses are fathers of "traditional Muslim famil[ies]" that depend on them not only financially, but also for such services as driving, something most of their wives cannot do. While not unsympathetic to the disruption to daily family life that foreign travel may cause, the Court nonetheless cannot allow the simple fact that the proposed deponents are Muslims with dependent families to overcome DIB's discovery obligations. Permitting such an excuse would effectively insulate an entire segment of the global population from the ordinary rules of discovery, regardless of having availed itself of the U.S. court system. Moreover, each of the deponents need appear in New York for at most a couple of days. DIB also contends that although it filed its Complaint in New York, it had no choice but to do so, apparently-referring to the forum selection clause in its contract with Citibank. (Letter of Frank C. Welzer, Esq., Jan. 7, 2002, at 7.) However, as Citibank rightly contends, the fact that DIB agreed to such a clause only supports the conclusion that its officers should be required to appear in this forum for deposition. (Tucker Jan. 10, 2002 Let. at 6 n. 6.) Moreover, the Court notes that this is not a case involving an individual plaintiff with limited financial resources, in which being forced to appear in a foreign forum would pose a significant economic hardship. Compare Normande v. Grippo, No. 01 Civ. 7441 (JSR) (THK), 2002 WL 59427, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2002) (permitting telephonic deposition of Brazilian plaintiff where plaintiff was pro se, had limited resources, and would have been forced to travel to New York with her infant child, and where case was neither complex nor involved many documents; thus, hardship to plaintiff in coming to New York clearly outweighed any prejudice to defendant from conducting deposition by telephone). Another common objection raised by DIB is the uncertainty surrounding the ability of some of the deponents to secure travel visas to the United States. However, Citibank has represented its willingness to work with DIB — and, as necessary, the State Department — to help secure the necessary travel documents. Obviously, if visas cannot be secured — after a good faith, diligent, and documented attempt — the Court will be confronted with a new set of circumstances that would require reconsideration of this decision. In his Declaration, Mr. Ellison asserts that several of the proposed deponents have medical problems that make their traveling to New York unadvisable. Mr. Khalid has asthma -(Ellison Decl. at 3); Mr. Rahman has "slightly raised blood pressure" and also risks "deep vein thrombosis" if subjected to long-distance air travel (id. at 6-7); Mr. Fawzi Lootah has recently had eye surgery, and "says that he cannot fly anywhere" (id. at 10); and Mr. Karim has "a blood pressure problem, which he controls by medication" (id. at 8). None of these conditions, except for Mr. Lootah's, is supported by any documentation, and even Mr. Lootah's medical records conspicuously do not contain a doctor's note prohibiting air travel. Indeed, Mr. Lootah's eye surgery took place in India, not Dubai, and thus presumably required his traveling by air. As for the conditions of Messrs. Rahman and Khalid, DIB has been on notice for approximately a year with respect to each witness that Citibank wished to depose him in New York, and has never
17. until now even suggested , despite extensive communication with this Court and Citibank concerning their depositions, that a medical condition might make coming here a problem. Accordingly, these medical objections, based on chronic conditions that presumably could have been raised at any time in the past year, have been waived. See A.I.A. Holdings, 2002 WL 538833, at *4. Finally, as for Mr. Karim's blood pressure problem, Mr. Ellison himself concedes that this is controlled by medication; merely having a correctable medical condition does not render one unable to travel. Finally, DIB notes that many of the proposed witnesses have miscellaneous personal obligations, such as the administration of a father's estate or the preparation for a daughter's wedding, that allegedly make travel to the United States undesirable or unfeasible. However, none of these objections appear to this Court to involve a substantial hardship or other compelling grounds for setting aside the normal rule regarding the location of depositions, and none presents an insurmountable practical difficulty. Moreover, Citibank has indicated its willingness to work with DIB to accommodate these personal concerns, such as by arranging the depositions of Mr. Al Rais and Mr. Ibrahim Lootah so as not to conflict with their required court appearances in Dubai. Further, Mr. Al Rais's alleged weariness of testifying about the fraud does not constitute the type of compelling circumstance that would justify his being excused from testifying here; rather, it underscores his apparent importance to the matters at hand. The Court has also considered DIB's various other objections to producing these witnesses in New York, and finds them without merit. Whatever hardship and practical difficulties may attend the appearance in New York of the seven managing agents herein discussed would be multiplied by requiring the taking of discovery in Dubai or elsewhere. Requiring depositions to take place in Dubai, or even London, would entail both sides to send abroad, for a far longer period than any one witness would be required to travel to New York, an entourage of lawyers, reporters, and translators, not to mention countless boxes of relevant documentary materials. The logistical and financial burden of such an operation, not to mention the personal risk to those involved, greatly exceeds that of sending seven witnesses to New York for one or two days each. As for DIB's suggestion that Citibank conduct telephonic or videotaped depositions, this is not a case where financial hardship or other good cause exists for departing from ordinary discovery procedures. Moreover, because of the language barriers and the need for interpreters, telephone depositions would not be practical. Cf. Daly, 1991 WL 33392, at *1 (noting that generally it is less cumbersome and more illuminating to conduct a face-to-face deposition). Additionally, the Court notes that given the highly contentious nature of this lawsuit, the availability of the Court to resolve disputes that may arise during depositions counsels in favor of conducting them in New York. The fact that letters rogatory regarding some of the witnesses are pending in Dubai does not preclude Citibank, the Defendant in this case, from conducting normal discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules. Indeed, as far as this Court is aware, these letters have been pending a long time, and may ultimately prove fruitless. Finally, the Court also notes that DIB's objection that Citibank is seeking to depose an excessive number of witnesses is not well taken; as of
18. January , DIB had deposed seventeen Citibank fact witnesses, versus four DIB witnesses that Citibank had deposed. (Tucker Jan 10, 2002 Let. at 2.) Though several more DIB witnesses have either been deposed or scheduled to be deposed since then, pursuant to this Court's direction, the disparity remains. As the Plaintiff in a quarter-billion-dollar lawsuit, DIB cannot avoid its obligations to furnish Citibank with a meaningful opportunity to take discovery. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, DIB's motion for a protective order shielding its employees from being subject to deposition by notice is granted with respect to Sayed Kamel Mansour, Mohammad Sadiq Mohammad Ali, and Sayed Najamul Hassan, and denied with respect to all others. Additionally, DIB may avoid producing Mr. Al Rabi'i for deposition upon the conditions discussed above. Regardless of whether DIB objects to any other portion of this Order, DIB shall immediately begin securing the visas and other travel documents necessary for the witnesses' travel to the United States; DIB shall provide the Court a written report of the status of all outstanding visa applications by June 30, 2002.