Carfora v. Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-08384
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Carfora v. TIAA, Judge Failla scheduled a conference about Plaintiffs’ subpoena to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
The plaintiffs and non-party Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center were directed to coordinate proposed dates for a pre-motion conference. The order did not resolve the subpoena dispute.
What happened
In Carfora v. Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America, the plaintiffs asked for a conference about a planned request to require Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, a non-party, to produce documents under a subpoena. The subpoena concerned sales or promotion of products and services outside certain plans.
Memorial Sloan-Kettering opposed the request. It argued that the plaintiffs could obtain the information from the defendants, that the subpoena was too broad and burdensome, and that the plaintiffs had not narrowed it after meeting with the center.
The court did not decide whether Memorial Sloan-Kettering must produce the documents. Judge Katherine Polk Failla said the court would hold a pre-motion conference, allowed the plaintiffs and the center to discuss scheduling, directed them to submit a joint letter with proposed conference times by July 25, 2025, and terminated the pending motion at docket entry 122.
The detailed version
- Carfora v. Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America · No. 1:21-cv-08384
- Katherine Failla
- July 22, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs requested a conference concerning an anticipated motion to compel third-party Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center ("MSK") to produce documents responsive to a February 2025 subpoena. The subpoena sought documents concerning the defendants’ sales or promotion of products or services outside certain plans, financial consultants’ ability to market or promote those products or services, and transfers of plan assets into them.
MSK’s Opposition
MSK asked the court to deny the plaintiffs’ request. It argued that the subpoena sought information the plaintiffs could obtain directly from the defendants, imposed significant burdens on MSK as a non-party, and remained too broad despite MSK’s efforts to negotiate a narrower scope. MSK stated that it had met and conferred with the plaintiffs twice and had offered to consider a compromise after the plaintiffs pursued discovery from the parties.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it intended to hold a pre-motion conference to discuss the third-party subpoena. At MSK’s request, the court allowed the plaintiffs and MSK to confer about scheduling. It directed them to file a joint letter proposing conference times by July 25, 2025, while noting that Judge Katherine Polk Failla had limited availability because she was presiding over a trial. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 122. The order did not decide whether MSK must comply with the subpoena or whether the subpoena should be quashed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.