Lawyer Who Sued After Taking A Baseball To The Testicle Takes Ball-Busting Deposition

Back in 2019, attorney Ethan Brecher sued Chelsea Piers for $100K after an allegedly faulty batting machine smacked him in the groin at 75-mph and then lobbed more pitches at him as he tried to get himself back up. In case anyone needed a reminder that there’s zero reason to take 75-mph pitches unless you’re rehabbing for the majors. Or at least wearing a cup.

Anyway, Brecher recently found himself embroiled in a different kind of ball busting, deposing a sassy witness and triggering some old-fashioned testimonial standoffs.

Brecher took the deposition of Dennis Nguyen in O’Connor v. Society Pass last month and things got testy as Nguyen brought attitude to the traditionally professional setting and Brecher pushed back.

Q: All these conversations where you talk about these things that he’s supposed to meet, did you ever put those in writing?
A: I did not.
Q: Did you ever memorialize in writing any of these conversations that you had with him where you talk about these things he was supposed to accomplish?
A: I believe I just answered that question. You keep asking the question two or three different times.

And yet his attorney has not objected because while probably asked and answered, this is an incredibly stupid reason to throw in an objection. There’s nothing cagey here, he’s just trying to phrase the question to be less vague.

Q: I’m asking you it again. Are you refusing to answer the question or not?
A: I’ve already answered that question.
Q: Okay. Well, that’s your attorney’s job to say whether that’s answered or not.
MR. NACHT: Ethan, if you asked a question already, he doesn’t have to answer it again.

Michael Nacht probably didn’t expect this to go off the rails in a second, but this is where he could’ve counseled his client that barring an objection he should just answer the question even if it’s repetitive. But we didn’t take this offramp.

THE WITNESS: Take a note. Take a note. Make a note.
MR. BRECHER: Being rude and snotty isn’t going to —
THE WITNESS: You’re the one that’s raising you voice, Ethan.
MR. BRECHER: I’m not raising my voice.
A: I’m not going to argue. Trust me, if I raise my voice, you’re going to hear it. And trust me, you don’t want me to hear your raised voice.
MR. BRECHER: What are you going to do, Mr. Nguyen? Are you threatening me, Mr. Nguyen?
MR. NACHT: Ethan, he’s obviously not threatening you. Enough.
THE WITNESS: Keep staring.

Now we get an effort to defuse the situation:

MR. NACHT: Please answer the question.
Q: Answer the question.
A: I’ve already answered the question.

To borrow from Brecher’s experience in 2019, “swing and a miss.”

The deposition progresses from there but the tension doesn’t evaporate:

Q: Do you recall texting Mr. O’Connor pictures of prostitutes you associated with?
A: What’s that?
Q: Do you recall texting Mr. O’Connor picture of prostitutes you —
A: I’ve texted him pictures of women that I chased. And he’s done the same for me.

All right, I’m starting to see why this witness might be a little hostile. There’s no groundwork laid for the idea that the witness hired prostitutes, it’s just hurled at him at around 75-mph. Frankly, the witness handles it better than most folks might.

Q: Isn’t this whole case on your part complaint that you just have sour grapes that you issued him 10 percent of Society Pass and now you’re seeking to come up with reasons to claw it back?
MR. NACHT: Objection.
A: No. But keep asking the questions. I’m actually enjoying this.
Q: Are you aware that —
A: Guess he ran out of mud raking.

It takes another 30 pages or so to heat up again:

Q: Isn’t the SEC investigating Society Pass?
A: It is the investigating. And the SEC has said there’s nothing going on.
Q: That’s what they told?
A: That’s what they told me.
Q: Who told you that?
A: Little piece of knowledge. Little piece of knowledge for you.
Q: When did they tell you that?
A: What’s that? They’ve already told us that.
Q: Is the investigation ongoing?
A: The investigation is concluded. Ha ha.
Q: When did it conclude?
A: It concluded earlier this year. Aha. Another arrow out of the quiver, Ethan. Uh-oh. Little bit more knowledge. Uh-oh. You are really enjoying this. Look at his face.

Not sure that the SEC would sound such a conclusive “all-clear” when they could keep folks on pins and needles indefinitely, but that’s neither here nor there. Let’s see where this goes:

MR. BRECHER: Note that the witness is making unnecessary comments on the record directed towards counsel for his own amusement.
THE WITNESS: Note that, please. And it is amusing.
Q: What’s so funny, Mr. Nguyen?
A: That you’re pathetic.
Q: Who’s pathetic?
A: I just said that you’re pathetic.
Q: That I’m personally pathetic?
A: Uh-hmm.
MR. NACHT: This is outside the scope of the lawsuit.

Understatement.

A: I’ve already said it. You are pathetic.
Q: Anything else you want to add about that?
A: That’s pretty much what I just said. Hurt your feelings, Ethan?
MR. BRECHER: You want to say anything else, Mr. Nguyen?
MR. NACHT: Let him ask questions. Okay.
Q: Anything else you want to add to that?
A: No. I’m good.
Q: You’re good?
A: Uh-hmm.
Q: You sure?
A: I’ve enjoyed it. Five minutes. Clock’s ticking.

Somehow this deposition fell short of the Joe Jamail Hall of Fame level, but it wasn’t for lack of opportunity.

Faulty Chelsea Piers batting machine injured my left testicle: lawyer [New York Post]

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.