Kelley-Hilton v. Sterling Infosystems Inc.

Document and procedural posture

The provided text is a December 3, 2019 letter from Katherine E. Perrelli of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, representing Sterling Infosystems, Inc. The letter responds to Melissa Kelley-Hilton’s request for permission to call two additional witnesses—Pam Panzarino and Alejandra Jimenez—at a preliminary-injunction hearing scheduled for December 5. A preliminary injunction is a temporary order issued before a final trial decision.

The text does not include an order by Judge Denise L. Cote deciding Kelley-Hilton’s request. It therefore does not establish whether the request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.

Sterling’s arguments

Sterling argued that the hearing would focus on whether the status quo should be changed by invalidating restrictive covenants in two agreements while the case proceeded toward trial. The letter says the court had identified three factual subjects for the hearing: Kelley-Hilton’s alleged whistleblowing concerning a compliance issue; a late-2018 company restructuring that allegedly affected her; and the events surrounding her October separation from Sterling.

Sterling contended that neither proposed witness had relevant personal knowledge about those subjects. It described Panzarino as a New York-licensed private investigator and vice president of investigations in Sterling Diligence. Kelley-Hilton allegedly wanted Panzarino to testify about whether Sterling had a qualified person needed to operate as a private investigator in New York. Sterling responded that it had produced Panzarino’s license, that its general counsel had identified another qualified private investigator elsewhere in Sterling, and that Panzarino’s testimony would not help resolve the enforceability of the restrictive covenants.

Sterling described Jimenez as senior manager of global investigations at Sterling Diligence and Kelley-Hilton’s direct report while Kelley-Hilton worked for Sterling. According to the letter, Kelley-Hilton wanted Jimenez to address Sterling’s statements that Kelley-Hilton had front-loaded work in 2018 and overworked her staff. Sterling argued that those subjects were not central to enforcing the covenants and that other witnesses already provided declarations and were expected to testify about the relevant workload and revenue issues.

Requested action

Sterling asked Judge Denise L. Cote not to require Panzarino and Jimenez to attend the preliminary-injunction hearing. Its stated reasons were that their testimony would be cumulative, outside the hearing’s identified subjects, and not material to the enforceability of the contractual covenants. The provided text ends with that request and does not state what the court ultimately did.