Antolini v. McCloskey
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-09038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Antolini v. McCloskey, Judge Aaron partly granted and partly denied Defendants’ motion to compel discovery.
Plaintiff Dino Antolini had to supplement his initial disclosures with his damages theory, damages computation, and supporting documents. Defendants received the damages-related discovery they sought, but not the requested attorney’s-fee documents or sanctions.
What happened
Antolini v. McCloskey concerns a wheelchair user’s claims that Defendants failed to make a public accommodation accessible to people with disabilities. Defendants asked Plaintiff to provide more information about his claimed damages and requested sanctions.
The court ruled that Plaintiff did not have to disclose documents supporting his request for attorney’s fees at this stage. But it required him to explain his damages theory, calculate the damages he seeks, and provide documents supporting that calculation.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to compel, and denied their request for sanctions. Plaintiff had to supplement his initial disclosures by July 20, 2020.
The detailed version
- Antolini v. McCloskey · No. 1:19-cv-09038
- George Daniels
- July 7, 2020
Background
Dino Antolini brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and common-law negligence. He alleged that Defendants failed to make their place of public accommodation accessible to people with disabilities. He sought injunctive and declaratory relief, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) to require revised initial disclosures. They sought documents supporting Antolini’s request for attorney’s fees and information and documents supporting his claimed damages for alleged violations of the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. Defendants also requested sanctions under Rule 37(b), which permits sanctions for failing to obey a discovery order.
Attorney’s-Fee Documents
The court denied Defendants’ request to compel documents related to attorney’s fees. It held that Rule 26(a) does not require a party to provide a computation of attorney’s fees or supporting documents at this stage because the entitlement to fees and the amount of fees cannot be known until one party has prevailed.
Damages Information
The court granted Defendants’ motion to compel information about the damages Antolini sought for alleged violations of the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. The court held that Defendants were entitled to a computation of the damages, copies of documents supporting that computation, and Antolini’s theory of damages.
The court ordered Antolini to supplement his Rule 26(a) initial disclosures no later than July 20, 2020. The supplemental disclosures had to state the theory under which he sought damages, provide the damages computation, and include copies of documents supporting that computation.
Sanctions
The court denied Defendants’ request for sanctions under Rule 37(b). Defendants did not identify a court order that Antolini had violated, and the court found that sanctions against either side were not appropriate at that time. Antolini also asked the court to consider sanctions against Defendants and their counsel under Rule 11, but the court noted that he had not followed Rule 11’s required procedure.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to compel. It denied the request for attorney’s-fee-related documents, granted the request for damages-related information and documents, and denied the request for Rule 37(b) sanctions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.