Geismann v. ZocDoc, Inc.
- Louis Stanton
- 1:14-cv-07009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Geismann v. ZocDoc, Inc., Judge Stanton ordered attorney-retainer disclosure and fax production, but denied without prejudice a request for transmission logs.
The plaintiff and proposed class, ZocDoc and the other defendants, and the plaintiff’s attorneys were affected by the discovery orders. The transmission-log request remained available for renewal under the condition stated by the court.
What happened
In Geismann v. ZocDoc, Inc., the court addressed discovery related to class certification. ZocDoc sought disclosure of the agreement between the plaintiff and her attorneys, while the plaintiff sought fax advertisements and transmission logs.
The court ordered disclosure of documents describing the attorney-client relationship, finding that the circumstances justified reviewing them. It also ordered defendants to produce copies of the faxes received by the plaintiff in two broadcasts, regardless of the recipients’ locations. The court denied the request for transmission logs without prejudice to renewal after the plaintiff sought enforcement of her subpoena in Intellicomm’s jurisdiction.
Judge Louis L. Stanton issued these rulings on March 6, 2020. The opinion concerned class discovery rather than discovery on the underlying merits.
The detailed version
- Geismann v. ZocDoc, Inc. · No. 1:14-cv-07009
- Louis Stanton
- Mar. 6, 2020
Background
The opinion addresses three discovery matters in a putative class action. The court emphasized that the discovery at issue concerned class certification, not the merits of the claims.
ZocDoc’s motion concerning the attorney-retainer documents
ZocDoc moved to compel disclosure of the terms of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ retention. The court explained that major litigation decisions, including settlement decisions, belong to the client rather than the lawyer. It found that reviewing the retainer documents was justified because the record described offers to pay Dr. Geismann as much as $20,000 that had been rejected, even though the court said those offers were multiple times what she could individually receive from a class recovery. The court also noted that proceeding with the action could result in a smaller recovery for her and substantial attorney fees from the class recovery. In the court’s view, these circumstances supported concern that class counsel’s interests might have prevailed over the class’s interests. The court therefore ordered disclosure of documents defining the attorney-client relationship as part of the class-certification process. The opinion does not use an explicit “granted” or “denied” label for this motion.
Plaintiff’s motion for the fax advertisements
The plaintiff moved to compel production of ZocDoc’s fax advertisements. The court ordered defendants to produce all copies of the faxes attached to the complaint that were received in the two broadcasts sent to Geismann. Each recipient was identified by a particular letter or numeral, and production was required regardless of the recipient’s location. The opinion does not use an explicit “granted” or “denied” label for this motion.
Transmission logs
The court denied the plaintiff’s request for transmission logs without prejudice to renewal. It directed that renewal follow an effort to enforce the plaintiff’s subpoena in Intellicomm’s own jurisdiction. “Without prejudice” means the request could be raised again under the condition stated by the court.
Disposition
Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered disclosure of the attorney-retainer documents and production of the specified fax copies. He denied without prejudice the request for transmission logs.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.