Bockian v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

Background

Plaintiff Jeffrey Bockian, represented by counsel, brought an employment case against Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Bockian served document requests on May 29, 2025. The defendant responded on July 14, 2025. After the defendant reported a technical problem involving the collection of electronically stored information, the parties exchanged letters and met several times to discuss discovery issues.

The plaintiff’s October 20, 2025 letter asked the court to resolve several remaining disputes. First, Bockian argued that the defendant should amend its responses to say whether it was producing or withholding responsive documents when it asserted objections. Second, he asked the defendant to conduct additional electronic searches for information about potential comparators and other employees. The requested searches concerned employees who allegedly absorbed Bockian’s duties, Frank Vasta, Tyler Dewhirst, and Ryan Hergrueter.

Ruling

The court denied the motion as premature. The court stated that, for the reasons in the defendant’s letter response, Docket Entry 35, the parties had to complete their meeting-and-conferring process about the listed issues before seeking the court’s intervention. The order did not resolve the underlying discovery disputes.

Classification and effect

This is a procedural order concerning discovery. It leaves the parties to continue their discussions before bringing these disputes back to the court. The opinion does not state whether the defendant must ultimately produce the requested documents or conduct the proposed searches.