Stecher v. Aerco International, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-08029-GHW
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Stecher v. Aerco International, Inc., Judge Woods scheduled a telephone conference about unresolved discovery disputes after noting several agreements.
The order concerned the plaintiffs, Raymond and Diane Stecher, defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., and the other parties to the case because all parties were directed to comply with the court’s emergency conference rules.
What happened
Raymond and Diane Stecher v. Aerco International, Inc., et al. involved a joint request about several discovery disputes between the plaintiffs and defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. The parties reported agreements concerning depositions, a possible extension of fact discovery to May 31, 2020, and delayed third-party discovery, but they disagreed about document disclosures, punitive-damages discovery, and the scope of a corporate deposition.
Cleaver-Brooks asked for further responses, copies of exhibit lists and exhibits concerning other defendants, advance access to deposition exhibits, and permission to seek a protective order narrowing the deposition notice. The plaintiffs argued that the requested materials were attorney work product or had already been disclosed, and that they did not have to reveal their questioning or trial strategy before discovery was complete.
Judge Gregory H. Woods did not decide the disputed discovery issues in this order. He ordered a telephone conference for April 29, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., and directed all parties to consult and comply with the court’s emergency rules concerning the conference.
The detailed version
- Stecher v. Aerco International, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08029-GHW
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 27, 2020
Background
The filing was a joint letter from plaintiffs’ counsel and counsel for defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. requesting a conference before filing a discovery motion. The parties said they had met and conferred but could not resolve several issues.
The parties reported several areas of agreement. They agreed, subject to the court’s approval, to extend fact discovery to May 31,
- Cleaver-Brooks planned to produce John Tornetta and Clancy Cornwall for remote depositions, and the plaintiffs agreed to produce Mrs. Stecher for a deposition on a date to be agreed upon in May
- The plaintiffs also agreed not to challenge the timeliness of responses from the State of New York to Cleaver-Brooks’s third-party discovery if those responses arrived after May 31,
- Cleaver-Brooks reserved the right to seek additional time for non-party discovery, including a possible inspection of the psychiatric hospital where Mr. Stecher worked.
Disputed Discovery Issues
Cleaver-Brooks contended that the plaintiffs had not provided exhibit lists and exhibits served concerning other defendants. It also argued that the plaintiffs’ response to a request for information about their punitive-damages claim was insufficient because it did not identify particular documents or witnesses. Cleaver-Brooks further sought an agreement that the plaintiffs would provide intended deposition exhibits 48 business hours before depositions.
Cleaver-Brooks also challenged the scope of the plaintiffs’ deposition notice for John Tornetta, a corporate witness. It argued that the plaintiffs’ counsel had previously questioned Mr. Tornetta extensively about most of the noticed subjects in other cases and sought permission to request a protective order narrowing the deposition.
The plaintiffs responded that they had provided the exhibits they intended to use against Cleaver-Brooks and had disclosed discovery responses produced by other defendants in this case. They argued that lists concerning other entities were attorney work product, were not specific to this case, and were not discoverable. They also argued that they were not required to identify particular exhibits or reveal their questioning strategy before the depositions. Regarding Mr. Tornetta, the plaintiffs said they intended to stay within the default seven-hour deposition limit but should be allowed to question him about all liability issues relevant to this case.
Court’s Action
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered a telephone conference for April 29, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., to discuss the issues raised in the letter. The court directed all parties to consult the court’s emergency rules concerning the conference and specifically ordered compliance with Emergency Rule 2.C. The order did not state a ruling on the parties’ disputed discovery requests or on the proposed fact-discovery extension.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.