Pusepa v. Annucci
- Ona Wang
- 1:17-cv-07954
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pusepa v. Annucci, Judge Wang required defendants to justify deposition questions and ordered plaintiff to submit a settlement agreement for private review.
Yekatrina Pusepa and the defendants represented by the New York State Attorney General’s Office, concerning the scope of Pusepa’s deposition and review of her settlement agreement with CO Illa.
What happened
Pusepa v. Annucci involved a dispute during Yekatrina Pusepa’s deposition in a sexual-abuse case. Lawyers representing defendants sought to ask about Pusepa’s current and past romantic relationships and the terms of her settlement with CO Illa.
Pusepa’s lawyer asked for a protective order to prevent questions about her relationships and the settlement. The lawyer argued that the relationship questions were irrelevant and harassing, and that the settlement was not relevant because it contained no admissions and would not involve Illa’s testimony.
Judge Ona T. Wang ordered defendants either to identify and explain the relevance of the proposed relationship questions or confirm that they would not ask them. Judge Wang also ordered Pusepa to provide the settlement agreement for the court’s private review.
The detailed version
- Pusepa v. Annucci · No. 1:17-cv-07954
- Ona Wang
- Nov. 19, 2019
Background
The filing concerns discovery during Yekatrina Pusepa’s deposition. The opinion text includes a November 15, 2019 letter from Pusepa’s lawyer and Judge Wang’s November 19, 2019 order. The lawyer stated that defendants represented by the New York State Attorney General’s Office had asked about Pusepa’s romantic life, including relationships unrelated to the alleged sexual abuse, and about the terms of Pusepa’s settlement agreement with CO Illa.
Requested protective order
Pusepa’s lawyer asked under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 30(d)(3) for a protective order, which is a court order limiting discovery to prevent harassment or improper questioning. The lawyer argued that questions about current and past romantic relationships were not relevant and invoked Federal Rule of Evidence 412, which generally restricts evidence about a person’s other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition. The lawyer also argued that the settlement agreement was not relevant because Pusepa did not intend to call Illa as a witness, the agreement contained no admissions, and it did not mention Illa providing testimony. The letter stated that the agreement might be relevant only to allocating damages and suggested that it could be withheld until after trial.
Order
Judge Ona T. Wang did not state that the requested protective order was granted or denied. Instead, the order required defendants, by November 22, 2019, to submit a detailed letter identifying and describing the questions they intended to ask about Pusepa’s current and prior romantic relationships and explaining why those questions were appropriate and relevant. Defendants could alternatively inform the court that they no longer intended to pursue that questioning. The order also required Pusepa, by November 22, 2019, to produce the settlement agreement with CO Illa for the court’s private review. The text does not provide a further ruling on whether the proposed questions or the agreement were ultimately discoverable.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.