Conflict International, Inc. v. Komorek
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-02165
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Conflict International v. Komorek, Judge Ramos ordered Komorek to respond to a military-records discovery request and scheduled a conference.
Conflict International, Inc. and Andrew McLaren, who requested military-records discovery; Stephen Komorek, who was directed to respond; and the parties involved in the related defamation and fiduciary-duty disputes.
What happened
Conflict International, Inc. and Andrew McLaren asked the court to allow discovery of Stephen Komorek’s military records. They said the records could relate to defamation claims involving statements about Komorek’s military service and to claims that he misrepresented his work history and qualifications.
The request was made under a federal law requiring a court order or signed subpoena before certain Privacy Act records can be disclosed. The parties had discussed whether Komorek would sign a release or agree to an order or subpoena, but they did not reach an agreement.
In Conflict International, Inc. v. Komorek, Judge Edgardo Ramos did not grant or deny the discovery request. He directed Komorek to respond by August 26, 2024, and scheduled a telephone conference for September 12, 2024, to address the request.
The detailed version
- Conflict International, Inc. v. Komorek · No. 1:23-cv-02165
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 19, 2024
Background
Conflict International, Inc. and Andrew McLaren sought third-party discovery of Stephen Komorek’s military records. The request arose in related litigation involving allegations that McLaren made defamatory statements about Komorek’s military service and allegations that Komorek misrepresented his employment history, intelligence-gathering experience, and qualifications. The letter states that Conflict had claims involving breach of fiduciary duties based on those alleged misrepresentations.
The letter identified several statements from August 2022 concerning Komorek’s military service, discharge, awards, education, assignments, security clearance, and alleged truthfulness. It also stated that the defendants had asserted defenses including truth, substantial truth, the rule concerning plaintiffs who cannot reasonably be damaged by alleged libel, and opinion.
Discovery Request
Conflict sought a court order or subpoena under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11), a provision of the Privacy Act that the letter said requires court authorization before the records could be disclosed. The letter argued that a subpoena alone would not be sufficient and that the records were relevant under the discovery rules. It also stated that the parties had agreed to a confidentiality order covering discovery, but had not yet filed the proposed order.
The parties had met and conferred about whether Komorek would sign a release or whether they would agree to a court order or subpoena. They were unable to reach an agreement. Conflict therefore requested an informal discovery conference under Local Rule 37.2 and formally asked the court to authorize disclosure of the military records.
Court’s Action
The court directed Komorek to respond by August 26, 2024. It scheduled a telephone conference for September 12, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. to address the request. The endorsed order does not state that the court granted or denied the requested discovery, issued an order or subpoena, or made a merits ruling on the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.