Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 23, 2019

Grant v. Witherspoon

Judge
Barbara Moses
Docket
1:19-cv-02460
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Grant v. Witherspoon, Judge Moses denied Grant’s discovery request for certification about who supplied documents and whether John Witherspoon had responsive materials.

Who this affects

The ruling affected Ronald Grant’s request for additional discovery about the defendants’ document production. It denied that request and left the defendants’ existing written statements about the documents in place.

What happened

In Ronald Grant v. Angela Robinson Witherspoon, et al., Grant asked the court to require the defendants to certify which defendant supplied documents produced during discovery.

Grant also sought confirmation that the late John Witherspoon had no responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control. He questioned the defendants’ explanation that the documents came from Angela Robinson Witherspoon or T Boyds Boy Productions, Inc.

Judge Barbara Moses denied the request. She found that Grant had not provided enough factual support for additional investigation into the defendants’ document search, and noted that the defendants had already provided written statements about the documents’ sources.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Grant v. Witherspoon · No. 1:19-cv-02460
Judge
Barbara Moses
Date
Dec. 23, 2019

Background

Plaintiff Ronald Grant filed a letter-motion seeking a certification from the defendants about the source of documents produced in discovery. The defendants had amended their responses to identify which defendants produced which documents. The production consisted of approximately 500 pages.

Grant questioned the defendants’ statement that the responsive documents were produced by Angela Robinson Witherspoon or T Boyds Boy Productions, Inc., rather than personally by John Witherspoon. John Witherspoon had been T Boyds’s chief financial officer, although defense counsel explained that he was chief financial officer in name only and that Angela Robinson Witherspoon actually handled the business’s financial operations. John Witherspoon died on October 29, 2019.

Grant asked the court to order the defendants to certify which defendant provided each document and to certify that John Witherspoon had no responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control.

Analysis

The court explained that discovery requests must seek information relevant and proportional to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). When a party seeks additional discovery about how the opposing side conducted its document search—sometimes called “discovery on discovery”—the party must provide an adequate factual basis for that request. Courts must scrutinize such requests because they can extend an already costly and time-consuming discovery process.

The court found that Grant had not provided an adequate factual basis for his suspicion that responsive documents remained undisclosed in John Witherspoon’s possession, custody, or control. The court stated that the defendants’ account was not inherently implausible given the close relationship among the individual defendants and the close corporation owned by one of them. Grant also had not identified any documents or categories of documents that he expected to receive but had not received.

The court further noted that the defendants had already stated in writing through counsel that, before his death, John Witherspoon had no responsive documents in his possession or control. They had also stated that the produced documents were provided solely by Angela Robinson Witherspoon, except for documents identified by Bates number as provided by both Angela Robinson Witherspoon and T Boyds Boy Productions, Inc. The court was not persuaded that ordering the defendants to certify those same facts would provide additional clarity or certainty.

Ruling

Judge Barbara Moses denied the letter-motion at Dkt. No. 81. The court also reminded the parties that initial expert reports were due on January 6, 2020.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.