Smith v. Ghurka Trading & Design LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:18-cv-09344
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Smith v. Ghurka Trading, Judge Liman denied two discovery requests as moot and denied sanctions without prejudice.
Natalie Smith, non-party Luxury Leather Brands, and defendants Steven Latkovic and Glenn Pollack were directly affected by the discovery rulings. The order did not decide the underlying employment claims.
What happened
In Smith v. Ghurka Trading & Design LLC, Natalie Smith asked the court to require a non-party to answer a subpoena and two defendants to provide discovery. She also requested sanctions against those defendants.
Smith said Luxury Leather Brands had not responded to a subpoena, while Steven Latkovic and Glenn Pollack had ignored discovery requests and efforts to resolve the dispute. The lawsuit concerns claims under federal, state, and city employment-discrimination and leave laws.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the requests concerning Latkovic and Pollack as moot because their lawyer represented that responses had been served. He denied the request concerning Luxury Leather Brands as moot because its lawyer represented that it would comply, and denied the sanctions request without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Ghurka Trading & Design LLC · No. 1:18-cv-09344
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 18, 2020
Background
Natalie Smith brought an employment lawsuit against Ghurka Trading & Design LLC, related entities, and individual defendants. The opinion says Smith was the company's Vice President of Merchandising and Retail Strategy and alleged that the company unlawfully fired her after she became ill, took medical leave, and could not provide medical documentation guaranteeing that she would not become ill again. Her claims arise under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Administrative Code.
This matter concerned discovery, which is the exchange of information and documents during a lawsuit. Smith served a subpoena on non-party Luxury Leather Brands on September 18, 2019. She said the company had not produced documents, objected to the requests, or asked for more time. Smith also served discovery requests on defendants Steven Latkovic and Glenn Pollack on December 5, 2019, and said they had not responded.
Requests
Smith asked the court to compel Luxury Leather Brands to comply with the subpoena, compel Latkovic and Pollack to comply with their discovery obligations, and impose sanctions. The requested sanctions included expenses and attorney fees and, if the failure to respond continued, possible measures affecting the defendants' pleadings or resulting in a default finding. These were requests by Smith; the opinion does not state that the court imposed those proposed sanctions.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied as moot the motion to compel Latkovic and Pollack because their counsel represented that discovery responses had been served. He denied as moot the motion to compel Luxury Leather Brands because its counsel represented that the company would comply with its discovery obligations. He denied the motion for sanctions without prejudice. The text provided ends after the words "but subject to," so any additional qualification to the sanctions ruling is not available in the provided opinion text.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it resolves discovery and sanctions requests without deciding the underlying employment claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.