Komorek v. Conflict International, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-09467
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Komorek v. Conflict International, Inc., Judge Ramos scheduled a conference and response deadline concerning a request for Komorek’s military records.
Stephen Komorek, Conflict International, Inc., and Andrew McLaren. The order concerns a request for discovery of Komorek’s military records and sets a response deadline and telephone conference.
What happened
In Komorek v. Conflict International, Inc., Conflict International, Inc. and Andrew McLaren asked the court to authorize discovery of Stephen Komorek’s military records. They said the records could relate to Komorek’s defamation claims and Conflict’s claims that he misrepresented his experience and qualifications.
Conflict’s attorney said the parties could not agree whether Komorek would sign a release or whether the court would issue an order or subpoena. The request relied on a federal privacy law requiring a court order or court-signed subpoena before the records could be disclosed.
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed Komorek to respond by August 26, 2024, and scheduled a telephone conference for September 12, 2024, to address the request. The text does not show that the judge granted or denied the discovery request.
The detailed version
- Komorek v. Conflict International, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09467
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 19, 2024
Background
The court endorsed a letter from Conflict International, Inc. requesting an informal discovery conference under Southern District of New York Local Rule 37.2. The letter also requested a court order or subpoena for Stephen Komorek’s military records under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11), a provision of the Privacy Act that requires a court order or a court-signed subpoena for disclosure of certain records.
The letter stated that Komorek’s remaining claims included claims based on allegedly defamatory statements by Andrew McLaren about Komorek’s military service. It also stated that Conflict had brought claims alleging that Komorek breached fiduciary duties by making false representations about his employment history, intelligence-gathering capabilities, and qualifications. Conflict and McLaren asserted that Komorek’s military service history, duties, disciplinary history, and performance were relevant to those claims and to defenses including truth, substantial truth, and opinion.
Discovery Dispute
The parties had discussed whether Komorek would sign a release or whether the court would issue an order or subpoena, but they did not reach an agreement. The letter further stated that the parties had agreed to a confidentiality order for discovery, which they expected to submit separately.
The letter cited cases stating that the Privacy Act does not categorically prevent relevant records from being obtained through court-ordered discovery and that relevance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) governs whether an order should issue. These propositions appear in the attorney’s request; the endorsed text does not contain a merits determination about the records’ relevance or authorize their disclosure.
Court’s Action
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed Komorek to respond by August 26, 2024. He scheduled a telephone conference for September 12, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. to address the request and provided instructions for joining the conference. The text does not state that the court granted or denied the requested order, subpoena, or discovery.
Disposition
This is a procedural discovery order setting a response deadline and conference. It does not resolve the underlying claims or decide whether the military records must be disclosed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.