Rinaldi v. NICE Ltd
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-00424
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rinaldi v. NICE Ltd., Magistrate Judge Fox denied Rinaldi’s motion to compel documents from nonparty SAP.
Peter Rinaldi’s request for documents from nonparty SAP SuccessFactors, Inc. was denied; the opinion also notes that SAP’s opposition did not comply with the same supporting-material requirements.
What happened
Peter Rinaldi, who was representing himself, asked the court to order SAP SuccessFactors, Inc., a company not named as a party, to produce documents. SAP opposed the request and said it concerned a subpoena issued for Rinaldi.
The court found that Rinaldi had not followed the court’s motion rules because he did not provide supporting affidavits and exhibits containing the facts and record materials needed to decide the motion. The court also noted that SAP did not properly support its opposition and that legal briefs are not evidence.
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox held that granting the motion was not warranted because it did not comply with the court’s local rules. The court denied the motion to compel.
The detailed version
- Rinaldi v. NICE Ltd · No. 1:19-cv-00424
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 20, 2020
Background
Peter Rinaldi, proceeding without a lawyer, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(4) for an order compelling SAP SuccessFactors, Inc. to produce documents responsive to his document request. SAP was not a party to the action. SAP opposed the motion and stated that the request concerned a subpoena issued on Rinaldi’s behalf.
Procedural Defects
Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 7.1 requires motions to include supporting affidavits and exhibits containing factual information and relevant portions of the record needed to decide the motion. Rinaldi did not submit those materials with his motion. The court therefore found that the motion was procedurally defective. The court acknowledged that Rinaldi was representing himself but explained that self-represented parties must still follow applicable procedural and substantive rules.
SAP also failed to submit the required affidavits and exhibits with its opposition. Instead, it attached an exhibit to its legal memorandum. The court stated that a legal memorandum is not evidence and cannot replace the affidavit requirement under Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(3).
Ruling
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox concluded that granting Rinaldi’s motion to compel was not warranted because the motion did not comply with the court’s local rules. The court denied the motion to compel, Docket Entry No. 112, and directed the Clerk of Court to mail Rinaldi a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.