Sussman Sales Company, Inc. v. VWR International, LLC

Background

The court addressed the parties’ current discovery disputes during a discovery conference. Discovery is the process by which parties obtain information and documents relevant to a lawsuit.

VWR’s June 5 Motion to Compel

The court granted in part VWR’s June 5, 2026 letter-motion to compel. The opinion refers to VWR as the plaintiff in this section, although the caption identifies Sussman Sales Company, Inc. as the plaintiff and VWR International, LLC as the defendant.

The court ordered Sussman to run two modified search strings across all of its custodians. One search covered documents from October 1, 2018, to the present and used terms involving “Whiteboard” while excluding specified terms and email addresses. The other covered documents from January 1, 2015, to the present and searched for “Dwayne,” “Dwayne’s,” or email addresses beginning with “dwaynej.”

By July 22, 2026, Sussman had to produce the search hit reports and all documents identified by those searches, except documents withheld on privilege grounds. Sussman could not withhold documents based on a responsiveness review. Any documents withheld as privileged had to be listed in a privilege log under Local Civil Rule 26.2 and produced with the hit report and other documents by the same deadline.

The court also ordered Sussman to consult its discovery vendor about the search terms used for its June 28 production of approximately 800 pages. If necessary, Sussman had to run the correct agreed-upon searches, produce the resulting responsive documents, and provide the underlying hit reports for both the June 28 and July 22 productions.

Sussman also had to comply by July 22 with an earlier order requiring an updated list of all New York City Department of Education employees or agents, including former employees or agents, with whom Sussman communicated about sales and marketing of interactive flat-panel displays at New York City Department of Education schools. The list was to include names and email addresses where known.

Finally, Sussman had to comply by July 22 with an earlier order requiring it to list, in one place and with Bates numbers, all documents supporting its damages calculation, including documents it reviewed in preparing its most recent response to Interrogatory No. 9. Bates numbers are identifying numbers placed on documents produced in litigation.

Sussman’s Motions to Compel

The court denied Sussman’s July 8, 2026 motion. It found that VWR had adequately shown that the withheld materials were protected attorney work product. Attorney work-product protection generally covers materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.

The court granted Sussman’s June 29, 2026 motion. It found that VWR had not adequately shown that the withheld materials were protected work product. The court stated that VWR did not explain the asserted basis for protection until July 14, 2026, in an unauthorized last-minute reply without evidentiary support, and therefore had waived that claim. VWR had to produce the documents identified in Category 9 of its categorical privilege log to Sussman by July 22, 2026.

Sanctions

The court did not impose additional discovery sanctions at that time. It warned both parties that a material failure to comply with the order by July 22 could result in sanctions against the noncompliant party, including a daily monetary fine continuing until full compliance with the listed discovery obligations.

Discovery Schedule

The court further modified the discovery schedule. The parties were directed to use their best efforts to substantially complete fact depositions by September 4, 2026, complete all remaining fact discovery by October 9, 2026, and complete expert discovery by November 23, 2026. Their deadline to propose a more detailed expert-discovery schedule remained August 28, 2026. The court stated that the parties should not expect further extensions of these deadlines.