Ramirez v. City Of New York
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-01061
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Ramirez v. City of New York, Judge Subramanian directed the parties to try resolving a discovery dispute; the court did not decide the subpoena request.
Sally Ramirez, the City of New York and the other defendants, and Gordon Kraus-Friedberg, who was subpoenaed to testify at a deposition.
What happened
In Sally Ramirez v. The City of New York et al., the City defendants asked the court to cancel a subpoena requiring Gordon Kraus-Friedberg to testify at a deposition. They argued that his testimony was irrelevant because he retired in 2016, before the challenged events, and that the deposition would exceed or improperly expand the usual ten-deposition limit.
Ramirez sought to depose Kraus-Friedberg in a case involving alleged discrimination, a denied promotion, and a denied accommodation request. The defendants argued that the request was premature because Ramirez had not yet completed the ten depositions already scheduled and that the proposed testimony was burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Judge Arun Subramanian ordered the parties to try to resolve the dispute through a brief meeting and to respond by March 12, 2025 if they could not do so. The document does not state that the court granted or denied the request to cancel the subpoena.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. City Of New York · No. 1:24-cv-01061
- Subramanian
- Mar. 11, 2025
Background
The document concerns a discovery dispute in Sally Ramirez's case against the City of New York and other defendants. Ramirez subpoenaed Gordon Kraus-Friedberg to testify at a deposition scheduled for April 1, 2025. The attached subpoena identifies Kraus-Friedberg as the person required to appear and testify.
The defendants submitted a letter asking the court to quash, or cancel, the subpoena. They argued that Kraus-Friedberg retired in 2016 and therefore could not have information about alleged discriminatory conduct beginning in October 2022, including the alleged denial of Ramirez's promotion application and accommodation request. They also argued that Kraus-Friedberg did not report to the individual defendants identified in the letter.
Parties' Arguments
The defendants relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30 and 26. Rule 30 generally requires court permission for a party to take more than ten depositions when the parties have not agreed otherwise. Rule 26 permits limits on discovery that is cumulative, available from a more convenient source, insufficiently justified, or disproportionate to the needs of the case.
The defendants argued that Ramirez had already scheduled depositions of ten witnesses and had not completed those depositions. They contended that the request for Kraus-Friedberg's deposition was premature, irrelevant, and disproportionate. The letter also states that the defendants were not opposing a subpoena for Ramirez's former supervisor, while they opposed the production of another current City employee and expected Ramirez might seek to compel that deposition.
Court's Action
Judge Arun Subramanian directed the parties to try to resolve the dispute through a brief meeting. The court stated that, if the parties could not resolve it, they should respond by March 12, 2025. The provided text does not state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise decided the defendants' request to quash the subpoena.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.