Times v. Target Corporation
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:18-cv-02993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Times v. Target Corporation, Judge Gorenstein denied Isaac Rodriguez’s request for a subpoena to question class counsel before deciding pending motions.
Isaac Rodriguez’s request for a subpoena and discovery from class counsel was denied before the court decided the pending motions. Target Corporation may respond if Rodriguez raises the discovery issue in his reply brief.
What happened
Times v. Target Corporation involves a class settlement concerning alleged race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Isaac Rodriguez identified himself as a putative class member and represented himself without a lawyer.
Rodriguez asked the court to issue a subpoena requiring class counsel Ossai Miazad to appear and testify. He argued that counsel’s testimony and other materials were needed to interpret the settlement’s opt-out and tolling provisions and to support his position that his claims were not barred by time limits or delay.
The court denied Rodriguez’s application for a subpoena or other discovery from class counsel before deciding the pending motions. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein allowed Rodriguez to explain in his reply brief why that discovery should be permitted and why it was necessary, and allowed Target to respond to that issue.
The detailed version
- Times v. Target Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-02993
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Feb. 13, 2025
Background
The opinion concerns a settlement involving alleged race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The settlement provided for monetary payments and an opportunity for class members to exclude themselves from the class and bring individual lawsuits. The opinion states that the settlement included provisions concerning an opt-out period and a tolling agreement.
Isaac Rodriguez identified himself as a putative class member and proceeded without a lawyer. He asserted that Target had refused to comply with the settlement agreement by disputing issues involving the opt-out period, the statute of limitations, the tolling agreement, and preservation of evidence.
Requested Discovery
Rodriguez moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(1)(C), which governs subpoenas, for an order requiring class counsel Ossai Miazad to appear and testify. Rodriguez argued that class counsel’s presence and testimony were necessary to interpret the settlement’s tolling, release, and exclusion provisions. He also asserted that the requested materials would establish that his claim was tolled and was not barred by the statute of limitations or delay.
Ruling
The court denied the application for a subpoena or to take any discovery from class counsel before deciding the pending motions. The court did not decide in this order whether Rodriguez’s claims were tolled, whether they were barred by the statute of limitations or delay, or whether Target breached the settlement agreement.
The court stated that Rodriguez’s reply brief, due February 26, 2026, could address why discovery from class counsel should be permitted and why it was necessary to decide his motion. Target was allowed to respond to that issue by letter within seven days after the reply brief was filed. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered the order on February 13, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.