Corradino v. Liquidnet Holdings, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-10434
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Corradino v. Liquidnet Holdings: Judge Schofield scheduled a conference about four discovery disputes without deciding the requested discovery.
Mary Corradino, Liquidnet Holdings, Inc., and Seth Merrin; the order addressed their discovery disputes and scheduled a conference.
What happened
In Corradino v. Liquidnet Holdings and Seth Merrin, Mary Corradino asked the court to intervene in four disputes about discovery in her lawsuit against the defendants.
She sought investigation records, older discrimination-complaint records, information about Seth Merrin’s compensation, and continued searches for electronically stored information. The opinion text does not show the defendants’ response in full or a ruling on whether the requested discovery must be produced.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered a telephone conference for July 9, 2020, and directed the parties to file a joint letter with call-in information. The clerk was asked to close the motion at Docket No. 45.
The detailed version
- Corradino v. Liquidnet Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10434
- Lorna Schofield
- July 1, 2020
Background
The filing concerns four discovery disputes in Corradino’s lawsuit against Liquidnet Holdings, Inc. and Seth Merrin. The plaintiff’s letter states that Corradino, a former Liquidnet Human Resources executive, alleges sexual harassment and retaliation under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Those allegations are described in the plaintiff’s letter and are not adjudicated in this order.
Discovery Requests
Corradino asked the court to require defendants to produce:
- Documents concerning Liquidnet’s investigation into her complaints. She argued that attorney-client and work-product privilege did not apply because the investigation had a business purpose, or alternatively that defendants waived any privilege by relying on the investigation.
- Documents from January 1, 2008, onward concerning other discrimination or harassment complaints involving Merrin or Liquidnet.
- Information about Merrin’s compensation, which Corradino argued was relevant because she sought punitive damages.
- Continued searches for responsive electronically stored information. Defendants had asserted that they had exceeded a presumptive 160-hour cap under the judge’s individual rules. The letter states that defendants agreed to produce time records concerning their review and production of electronically stored information, after which Corradino would assess whether to challenge that position.
Order and Disposition
The text does not decide whether defendants must produce the requested materials, whether any privilege applies, or whether further electronic searches are required. Instead, the court ordered a telephone pre-motion conference for July 9, 2020, at 10:40 a.m. The parties were directed to file a joint letter by July 2, 2020, with a telephone number and, if necessary, a passcode. Judge Lorna G. Schofield also ordered that the clerk be respectfully requested to close the motion at Docket No. 45.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning discovery and a pre-motion conference, not a decision on the underlying claims or the requested discovery.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.