Ancora Holdings Group, LLC v. LaPuma
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-04417
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ancora Holdings Group v. LaPuma, Judge Subramanian directed the parties to attend a telephone conference about a discovery dispute.
Ancora Holdings Group, LLC and David LaPuma, whose document requests, organizational deposition topics, and discovery schedule were the subjects of the dispute.
What happened
Ancora Holdings Group, LLC v. David LaPuma involved a dispute over information LaPuma sought about his claimed commissions, carried-interest payments, and related defenses and counterclaims.
LaPuma’s lawyer asked the court to reject Ancora’s objections, require additional document production and testimony, and extend the discovery deadline. The letter also said LaPuma had a pending request to dismiss the case, but the court did not decide that request here.
Judge Arun Subramanian ordered the parties to appear for a telephone conference on January 21, 2025. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the requested discovery relief.
The detailed version
- Ancora Holdings Group, LLC v. LaPuma · No. 1:24-cv-04417
- Subramanian
- Jan. 17, 2025
Background
The filing is a letter from David LaPuma’s counsel concerning an ongoing discovery dispute with Ancora Holdings Group, LLC. LaPuma’s counsel said the parties had conferred about discovery and had reached an impasse on one aspect of the dispute.
LaPuma had served requests for documents and an amended notice for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows an organization to be questioned through a designated witness. Ancora objected to the requests and deposition topics. The disputed requests and topics concerned information about LaPuma’s claimed commissions, carried-interest payments, asset-under-management fees, payment policies, and people involved in distributing money allegedly owed to employees.
Parties’ Positions
LaPuma’s counsel argued that the requested information was relevant to his anticipated affirmative defenses and compulsory counterclaims. Counsel said LaPuma claimed Ancora had withheld commissions, carried-interest payments, and other money allegedly owed after his employment ended. The letter also stated that LaPuma had moved to dismiss Ancora’s action and that the motion was pending, but the court did not address that motion in this order.
According to the letter, Ancora objected mainly that the discovery was disproportionate and should be limited to Ancora’s claims rather than LaPuma’s defenses and anticipated counterclaims. LaPuma’s counsel characterized some of Ancora’s objections as boilerplate and asked the court to overrule them, compel fuller written responses, require testimony on the disputed topics, and extend the March 16, 2025 fact-discovery deadline.
Court’s Action
Judge Arun Subramanian did not rule in this filing on whether Ancora’s objections were proper, whether Ancora had to produce the requested information, whether LaPuma’s defenses or counterclaims were valid, or whether discovery deadlines should be extended. The court directed the parties to appear for a telephonic conference on January 21, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. The text provided does not state any further ruling on the requested discovery relief.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.