Petit v. Epiq eDiscovery Solutions
Germain Petit v. Epiq eDiscovery Solutions, Inc., Lisa Edgeworth, Ann Marie Carlson, Stacey Sacks
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-09880
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Germain Petit v. Epiq, Judge Vyskocil ordered the Marshals Service to serve defendants after Petit was allowed to proceed without upfront fees.
Germain Petit, the four named defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The order sets up service of Petit’s complaint and does not resolve the underlying employment claims.
What happened
In Germain Petit v. Epiq eDiscovery Solutions, Inc., Petit, representing himself, alleges that his former employer and three former supervisors discriminated and retaliated against him under federal and New York City employment laws.
Because Petit was allowed to proceed without paying court fees upfront, the court directed the Clerk to issue summonses, prepare service forms, and send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The defendants must be served within 90 days after their summonses are issued, unless Petit asks for more time.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also directed the Clerk to mail Petit an information package and warned that he must notify the court if his address changes. The order addressed service of the lawsuit, not whether Petit’s claims have merit.
The detailed version
- Petit v. Epiq eDiscovery Solutions · No. 1:24-cv-09880
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
Germain Petit is representing himself in an action against his former employer, Epiq eDiscovery Solutions Inc., and former supervisors Lisa Edgeworth, Ann Marie Carlson, and Stacey Sacks. He alleges that, during his employment with Epiq, he experienced discriminatory and retaliatory conduct violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and relevant provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law.
The court had previously allowed Petit to proceed without prepaying filing fees. This status permits a plaintiff to receive assistance from the court and the U.S. Marshals Service in serving the defendants.
Order
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Epiq, Edgeworth, Carlson, and Sacks; complete a U.S. Marshals Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant; and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the summonses and complaint. The Clerk was also directed to mail Petit an information package.
The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Petit should request an extension of time. Petit must notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that it may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.
Effect of the Order
This is an order arranging service of the lawsuit. It does not decide whether Petit’s discrimination or retaliation claims are legally valid. The order identifies service addresses for the defendants, including addresses associated with Epiq. The caption names one defendant as Ann Marie Carlson, while the service-address list names that defendant as Anne Marie Carlson.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.