Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-07347
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank, Judge Ramos directed Newmark to respond to Stocking’s discovery motion by March 25.
Maria Stocking and Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC; the order specifically required Newmark to respond to Stocking’s discovery motion.
What happened
In Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC, Maria Stocking, representing herself, asked the court to require Newmark to provide documents and communications relevant to her allegations of discrimination against Hispanic employees, particularly older Hispanic women.
Stocking said Newmark had provided only limited discovery responses and had objected to or withheld information about supervisor communications, employee assignments, appraisal reports, office space, employee departures, and an alleged assault involving a Hispanic employee. She asked the court to order production of those materials and to award her expenses for bringing the motion.
The court did not state that it was granting or denying the motion. Judge Edgardo Ramos directed Newmark to respond by March 25.
The detailed version
- Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07347
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 18, 2025
Matter Before the Court
Maria Stocking, appearing without a lawyer, filed a motion asking the court to compel discovery responses from Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC. A motion to compel asks the court to order another party to provide requested information or documents during the discovery phase of a case.
Stocking’s Requests and Positions
Stocking stated that she served discovery requests on September 28, 2024. She said Newmark responded on October 31, 2024, with broad objections and limited documents. She further stated that, after deficiency letters and conferences between the parties, Newmark agreed to supplement some responses by January 15, 2025, but had not done so by the time of her filing.
Stocking sought materials concerning:
- Emails between supervisor Greg Becker and Hispanic female employees Maria Stocking and Antonia Donoso; - Emails between Becker and younger white male employees Anthony Bonet and Steve Saganoir, which Stocking described as comparator evidence; - Job logs concerning client assignments and exclusivity arrangements involving Raymond Higgins, David Gray, Greg Becker, and Stocking; - The Bank United hotel appraisal report and communications concerning its signing and the reassignment of the Bank United account; - Floor plans and office-space assignment records for Newmark’s Miami, Palm Beach, and Boca Raton offices; - Exit or termination records for six Hispanic employees who departed from Newmark’s Miami office; and - Text messages and emails concerning Becker’s alleged physical and verbal assault of Jose Ortiz, whom Stocking described as a Hispanic appraiser.
Stocking argued that these materials were relevant to her allegations of systematic discrimination based on age, gender, and national origin. Newmark objected to various requests as irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, or protected by attorney-client privilege.
Court’s Action
The opinion text is an endorsed memorandum stating: “Newmark is directed to respond by March 25.” The text does not say that the court granted or denied Stocking’s motion to compel, does not order Newmark to produce the requested materials, and does not award expenses. The response year in the endorsement appears truncated in the supplied text.
Judge Edgardo Ramos therefore issued a response deadline, but the supplied opinion does not disclose a final ruling on the discovery requests.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.