Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC

Background

Maria Stocking, who was representing herself when this opinion was issued, sued her former employer, Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on race, age, gender, and disability under federal, New York State, and New York City laws. The case was transferred from the Southern District of Florida to the Southern District of New York based on a forum-selection clause in Stocking’s employment agreement.

The agreement included a jury-trial waiver. Stocking argued that she signed the agreement without a lawyer and did not know about the waiver. Newmark also submitted a 2017 amendment that changed compensation but stated that the agreement’s other terms remained in effect. The court applied four factors concerning whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary: the opportunity to negotiate, how noticeable the waiver was, the parties’ relative bargaining power, and Stocking’s business experience. The court found that all four factors supported enforcement and held that Stocking knowingly and voluntarily waived a jury trial. The supplied opinion text does not include a separate sentence expressly stating whether Newmark’s motion to strike the jury demand was granted, but it states that the waiver was valid and enforceable.

Discovery and subpoena requests

The court denied Stocking’s request for leave to serve an interrogatory asking whether Newmark owned interests in five properties leased by the law firm that represented Newmark. The court found that the proposed discovery was not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. It concluded that even a landlord-tenant relationship would not, by itself, establish that the law firm had a conflicting interest in representing Newmark, and it found no indication that the information would support Stocking’s allegations of evidence destruction or obstruction of justice.

Stocking sought permission to issue a subpoena to a former Newmark employee, identified in the filings as Jane Doe, for a deposition conducted through written questions. The court denied the conditional subpoena request without prejudice because it depended on discovery events that had not yet occurred. The court also denied without prejudice the renewed subpoena request as moot because it repeated the earlier request.

The court denied Stocking’s requests for a protective order protecting Jane Doe’s identity. It found that the case did not involve matters highly sensitive or personal to Jane Doe and that keeping her identity anonymous in public filings would not reduce the claimed retaliation risk because Stocking had already used her name in discovery. For the same reasons, the court denied Stocking’s request to require Newmark to strike and re-file a filing with Jane Doe’s name redacted.

Health insurance and sanctions

Stocking asked the court to order Newmark to restore her employer-provided health insurance and sought increased sanctions. She later withdrew the request to restore coverage because she had obtained other health insurance. The court therefore denied the request for that relief as moot. It preserved Stocking’s arguments that the termination of her employment and health benefits was retaliatory and stated that it would address the sanctions issues after the parties completed briefing on her sanctions motions.

Evidence and future filings

Stocking asked the court to admit a sworn declaration and 22 attached exhibits into evidence. The court construed that request as seeking to use the materials in support of her sanctions motions and granted the request for that purpose. It directed Stocking to attach any relevant materials separately to future motions if she sought to use them for other purposes.

The court denied Stocking’s general request for permission to amend or correct any future filing, explaining that the request was premature and unnecessary. It stated that she could ask to amend or correct a specific future filing if a need arose, and the court would consider each request individually under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Disposition

The court denied the request for leave to serve the interrogatory; denied the requests for a protective order for Jane Doe; denied the request to require Newmark to file a redacted version of its filing; and denied the general request to amend or correct future filings. It denied as moot the request to reinstate health insurance, denied without prejudice the requests to issue the subpoena to Jane Doe, and granted the request to use the declaration and exhibits in support of the sanctions motions. The court deferred judgment on the sanctions requests. The overall opinion concerns procedural and case-management matters rather than a final decision on the underlying discrimination and retaliation claims.