Carney v. Barbaz
- Andrew Carter
- 1:24-cv-05362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Carney v. Barbaz, Judge Figueredo scheduled a conference about disputed electronic-device and Brooklyn District Attorney discovery.
Brianna Carney, CrewBloom LLC, and Alec Michael Barbaz; the order concerns their discovery disputes and a possible subpoena to the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office.
What happened
Brianna Carney and CrewBloom LLC sued Alec Michael Barbaz, who also asserted counterclaims. During discovery, the parties disagreed about forensic copies of electronic devices, information involving the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, and a proposed subpoena to that office.
Barbaz asked the court to require Carney and CrewBloom to identify relevant devices, provide them for forensic imaging, produce communications with the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, and allow a subpoena seeking related records. The document does not resolve those discovery disputes or decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The court scheduled a discovery conference for February 3, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo and directed the parties to submit a joint letter describing the issues and their positions.
The detailed version
- Carney v. Barbaz · No. 1:24-cv-05362
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 14, 2025
Nature of the document
This document is a letter motion requesting a discovery conference. It is not a decision on the merits of the parties’ claims or counterclaims.
Background
The parties were in the discovery phase of the case and had exchanged letters about alleged discovery deficiencies. They held a meet-and-confer session on December 30, 2024, but reached an impasse concerning forensic imaging of personal electronic devices, including phones, laptops, and desktop computers.
According to Barbaz’s submission, a forensic expert was collecting and imaging Barbaz’s devices. The submission stated that Carney’s devices—a MacBook laptop and an iPhone—had reportedly been collected and forensically imaged by the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office. Barbaz stated that the plaintiffs had not provided information about when the devices were obtained, the imaging method, the data or metadata collected, or whether copies of the images would be provided. The submission also stated that Barbaz had not received information about CrewBloom LLC’s servers or devices.
Discovery requests described in the letter
Barbaz sought an order requiring the plaintiffs to identify relevant electronic devices in Carney’s possession and in CrewBloom’s possession or control, produce those devices for forensic imaging by a qualified vendor chosen by the plaintiffs, and immediately produce documents and communications between the plaintiffs and the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office concerning the case and Barbaz’s counterclaims.
Barbaz also sought information concerning the Brooklyn District Attorney’s investigation, including records, reports, and conclusions related to Carney’s accusations against him. Finally, Barbaz requested the court’s endorsement and permission to serve a subpoena on the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office for documents and information concerning the imaging of Carney’s devices and the office’s results, reports, or conclusions related to the accusations.
Court’s action
The document states that a discovery conference was scheduled for February 3, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo. The parties were directed to file a joint letter outlining the issues to be addressed and each party’s position. The text provided does not state that the court granted or denied any request for forensic imaging, document production, or a subpoena, and it does not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.