Smith v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:23-cv-09944
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Smith v. Port Authority, Judge Willis partly granted and partly denied Smith’s discovery motion, requiring disclosures and dismissing one request without prejudice.
Rebecca Smith, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and Mary Lee Hannell; the order required specified discovery, limited the Port Authority’s production to the Gibbons report rather than related correspondence, and dismissed without prejudice Smith’s motion to compel Hannell and her request for attorney’s fees.
What happened
In Smith v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Rebecca Smith asked the court to require the Port Authority and Mary Lee Hannell to provide documents and answer interrogatories in her discrimination lawsuit. She sought the Port Authority’s investigative report, documents from Hannell, and complete answers to five interrogatories.
The court ordered the Port Authority to provide the investigation report but not related correspondence with outside counsel. It dismissed Smith’s motion to compel Hannell and her request for attorney’s fees without prejudice, because Smith had not followed required meet-and-confer procedures and Hannell had agreed to produce documents; Hannell was ordered to produce them by July 25, 2025. The court also required both defendants to answer the five interrogatories, with some requests modified.
The court ultimately granted Smith’s motion to compel in part and denied it in part. Judge Jennifer E. Willis reminded the parties to meet and confer in good faith before seeking further court involvement.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey · No. 1:23-cv-09944
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 23, 2025
Background
Rebecca Smith moved to compel discovery from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Mary Lee Hannell. She requested: (1) documents concerning investigations into her discrimination complaints from the Port Authority; (2) complete document production from Hannell; and (3) complete answers to five interrogatories served on both defendants.
Port Authority Investigation Report
The Port Authority had retained outside counsel to investigate Smith’s September 18, 2022 age-discrimination complaint. Smith sought the resulting “Gibbons report.” She argued that the report was relevant because the Port Authority’s defenses allegedly placed its investigation at issue, and that any attorney-client or work-product protection had been waived. The Port Authority argued that it was not asserting the relevant employer-defense theory and that the report was privileged.
The court ordered the Port Authority to provide Smith with the Gibbons report, but not correspondence between the Port Authority and outside counsel about the report. The court concluded that the Port Authority’s defenses put the investigation at issue and therefore waived any privilege concerning the investigation. The court also stated that the report was prepared for an internal investigation before the lawsuit was filed and was not protected work product prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Hannell’s Documents and Attorney’s Fees
Smith argued that Hannell had produced no documents, even though documents from Hannell’s account appeared in the Port Authority’s production. Hannell argued that Smith had not first met and conferred in good faith as required by the court’s rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hannell also argued that the request was moot because she had agreed to produce documents.
The court dismissed without prejudice Smith’s motion to compel Hannell and her request for attorney’s fees. It did so both because Smith had not followed the required procedures and because Hannell had agreed to produce the documents. The court ordered Hannell to produce the documents no later than July 25, 2025.
Interrogatories
Smith sought complete answers to five interrogatories. The defendants argued that Smith had not met and conferred and that the interrogatories exceeded the scope and timing permitted by Local Civil Rule 33.3(a).
The court granted the motion to compel in part and required answers to each interrogatory, with the following limits or explanations:
- The defendants must identify each person who at any time assumed Smith’s job responsibilities; the requests for those persons’ ages, genders, and salaries were not included in the modified request.
- The defendants must identify the salary associated with the alleged failure to promote described in paragraph 74 of the amended complaint.
- The defendants must identify who created the role for Smith described in paragraph
- 4. The defendants must explain how Smith’s salary changed during her employment, specifically including how the salary was calculated.
- The defendants must identify each instance when Smith received a performance award but not the maximum available award.
Disposition
The court’s conclusion states that Smith’s motion to compel was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The order also separately dismissed without prejudice Smith’s motion to compel Hannell and her request for attorney’s fees. The court reminded the parties to meet and confer in good faith before seeking further judicial intervention.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.