Grullon v. Lewis
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-04892
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Grullon v. Lewis, Magistrate Judge Netburn partly granted Plaintiff’s discovery motion, ordering a narrower search and denying depositions and sanctions.
Luis Grullon, Steven D. Lewis, Giuseppe Zappala, and Defendants’ counsel; the order requires additional discovery and attorney-supervised searches while denying sanctions and immediate follow-up depositions.
What happened
In Grullon v. Lewis, Luis Grullon asked the court to require Steven D. Lewis and Giuseppe Zappala to provide additional discovery. He also requested certifications about their searches, permission for follow-up depositions, and sanctions for alleged discovery failures.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It ordered Defendants’ lawyers to search for relevant communications between Lewis and Zappala, subject to reasonable search terms and privilege logs, and required production by June 30, 2025. The court denied the request for sanctions and denied permission for follow-up depositions, but allowed Grullon to renew that request after receiving the discovery.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn found that Defendants’ lawyers had not made an objectively reasonable inquiry because Lewis and Zappala had searched their devices and accounts with little, if any, attorney oversight. She modified the discovery requests because they were too broad.
The detailed version
- Grullon v. Lewis · No. 1:24-cv-04892
- Valerie Caproni
- June 17, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Luis Grullon moved to compel further written discovery and document production from Defendants Steven D. Lewis and Giuseppe Zappala. The motion sought four forms of relief: communications between Lewis and Zappala from January 1, 2021, through January 30, 2022; certifications that Defendants had conducted good-faith searches of phones, iCloud accounts, and social media; permission to take follow-up depositions of Lewis and Zappala; and sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, including costs connected to the motion and any renewed depositions.
Grullon also challenged the way Defendants handled discovery, arguing that their lawyers had allowed the clients to decide what information was relevant and responsive. The court explained that Rule 26(g)(1) requires a lawyer signing a discovery response to certify, after a reasonable inquiry, that the response is complete and correct to the best of the lawyer’s knowledge, information, and belief. The court also stated that counsel must monitor compliance and ensure that all sources of discoverable information are identified and searched.
Rulings
The court held that Defendants’ counsel had not conducted an objectively reasonable inquiry. Deposition testimony indicated that Lewis and Zappala had searched their devices and accounts with minimal, if any, oversight from counsel. The court stated that counsel must be actively involved in searching for and producing discovery.
The motion to compel responses to Requests for Production Numbers 23 and 17 was GRANTED as modified. The original requests sought all messages and other communications between Lewis and Zappala during the specified period. The court found those requests overbroad and narrowed them to communications relevant to the claims and defenses, including discussions about recording, releases, management, contracts, and label signings.
The parties were ordered to meet and confer about reasonable search terms consistent with the modified requests. Defendants’ counsel, rather than Lewis and Zappala themselves, was ordered to conduct the searches. Because Lewis and Zappala had shared a transactional attorney during the relevant period, the court recognized that some communications might be protected by attorney-client privilege. Defendants could redact privileged portions, but had to provide a privilege log explaining the basis for each redaction under Rule 26(b)(5). Defendants were ordered to produce responsive documents by June 30, 2025.
The request for permission to conduct follow-up depositions of Lewis and Zappala was DENIED without prejudice to renewing the motion after Defendants produce discovery consistent with the Order. The request for Rule 37 sanctions was DENIED. Overall, the motion to compel was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Effect of the Order
The order required additional, narrowed discovery and attorney-supervised searches. It did not grant sanctions or immediately authorize follow-up depositions. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued the Order on June 17, 2025.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.