In Xerox Corporation v. Conduit Global, Inc., a legal battle over a motion to compel deposition resulted in a fee dispute after the court denied Conduit’s request to depose Xerox’s CEO, Steven Bandrowczak. Conduit had missed the deadline to file the motion and sought an extension post-deadline, but the court ruled that Conduit failed to show “good cause” for an extension, thereby denying the motion and rendering Xerox’s protective order request moot. Subsequently, Xerox sought over $54,000 in attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B), but the court reduced the award to $6,000, noting that much of the legal work was unnecessary to resolve the motion. This case underscores the importance of meeting procedural deadlines and the court’s discretion in managing legal costs related to discovery disputes.
Author
March 23, 2026 at 12:37 PM
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty, or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the content on our site.