Nesbeth v. New York City Management LLC
- John Koeltl
- 1:17-cv-08650
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Nesbeth v. New York City Management LLC, Judge Cave directed the clerk to close a listed motion; the excerpt does not state its disposition.
Nicholas Nesbeth and the defendant entities involved in the discovery dispute, including the Besen Defendants, Hamilton Heights Cluster Associates L.P., Urban Green, and Safeguard Realty Management, Inc.
What happened
In Nesbeth v. New York City Management LLC, the defendants submitted a letter about alleged deficiencies in Nicholas Nesbeth’s discovery responses. They asked the court to require documents about Nesbeth’s income since January 18, 2016, and income from other sources during his work for the defendants.
The defendants also described other alleged problems, including late responses, unidentified witnesses, incomplete document references, privilege objections without a privilege log, and missing payment records. They argued that the requested information was relevant to Nesbeth’s wage-related claims and lost-income allegations. One defendant acknowledged that the request for tax returns might be premature and could be addressed after Nesbeth’s deposition.
Judge Sara L. Cave’s order directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at ECF No. 228. The provided excerpt does not clearly state whether that motion was granted, denied, or resolved in another way, and it does not contain a substantive ruling on the discovery disputes.
The detailed version
- Nesbeth v. New York City Management LLC · No. 1:17-cv-08650
- John Koeltl
- Feb. 10, 2020
Background
The defendants submitted a joint letter concerning alleged deficiencies in Nicholas Nesbeth’s discovery responses. The letter was submitted in connection with a January 29, 2020 order and a planned settlement conference. The defendants divided the requested discovery into material intended to assist settlement discussions and material they said would be needed if the case proceeded to litigation.
The defendants sought records showing Nesbeth’s income since January 18, 2016, and records showing income from other sources from 2010 through 2016. They said those records were relevant to his claim for lost wages and to assessing his allegation that he worked 72 hours per week while also working elsewhere.
Defendants’ Allegations About Discovery
The Besen Defendants asserted that Nesbeth’s discovery responses were late and that he therefore waived his objections. They also alleged that Nesbeth failed to identify witnesses, cited large numbers of pages without identifying responsive documents, objected to requests on privilege and possession grounds, relied on the amended complaint instead of identifying responsive documents, and declined to produce information concerning other workers, an eviction action, and documents available through his wife.
Hamilton Heights Cluster Associates L.P. made similar allegations. It stated that Nesbeth had not adequately identified witnesses or document locations, referred to documents that did not appear responsive, and asserted privilege without providing a privilege log. It also stated that Nesbeth had produced approximately nine checks but had not provided additional pay stubs, bank statements, tax forms, or tax returns requested for the wage-related claims.
The defendants relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), which limits discovery to nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Regarding tax returns, Hamilton Heights stated that the request might be premature and could be revisited after Nesbeth’s deposition. It nevertheless argued that the records were relevant and needed because the managing agents allegedly did not possess other payment records.
Urban Green joined the other defendants’ concerns about Nesbeth’s document production. Safeguard Realty Management, Inc. likewise argued that the production was insufficient to support Nesbeth’s wage-related claims and joined the request for records concerning his other employment and earnings.
Court Action
The order directs the Clerk of Court to close the motion at ECF No. 228. The provided text does not identify the motion’s title or clearly state whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved it. The excerpt therefore does not establish that the court ordered Nesbeth to produce any particular documents or decided the parties’ discovery disputes on the merits.
Disposition and Classification
The identifiable court action is the closure of the listed motion. Because the matter concerns pretrial discovery rather than the underlying wage-related claims, this is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.