Antolini v. McCloskey

Background

Dino Antolini sued Dimur Enterprises Inc., Amy McCloskey, and Theresa Laurent. The complaint asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law, along with a common-law negligence claim. Antolini, who is a wheelchair user, alleges that the defendants failed to make their place of public accommodation accessible to people with disabilities.

The opinion addresses several discovery disputes involving interrogatories, document requests, an inspection of the subject premises, and the terms of a protective order. Discovery is the pretrial process through which parties obtain information and documents relevant to the case.

Interrogatories

The defendants objected to interrogatories seeking information beyond the categories permitted at the beginning of discovery under Local Civil Rule 33.3(a): witness names, information about damages calculations, and information about relevant documents. The court sustained the defendants’ objections because Antolini’s interrogatories were not limited to those subjects.

The court also found that interrogatories were not a more practical way to obtain the requested information than depositions or document requests. It stated that depositions would be more efficient in this case. The court further noted that some interrogatories appeared to be contention interrogatories—questions about a party’s position on disputed issues—and that such questions generally are not permitted until other discovery is complete unless the court orders otherwise.

Document Requests and Tax Returns

The document disputes focused on tax returns and information about the defendants’ financial status and the subject property. The court applied a two-part standard for tax-return discovery: the returns must be relevant, and there must be a compelling need because the information cannot readily be obtained elsewhere.

The court found no compelling need for the individual defendants to produce their tax returns and concluded that requiring that production would not be proportional to the needs of the case. It also stated that Antolini had not explained why he needed financial information from the individual defendants, even assuming they were proper defendants in the case.

The court found it premature to resolve the remaining document disputes. Dimur had stated that it was prepared to produce financial-related documents subject to a protective order. The court ordered the defendants to produce Dimur’s financial-related documents within seven days. After that production, Antolini and the defendants were to meet and discuss whether additional documents from Dimur or the individual defendants were needed, and they could return unresolved disputes to the court.

Premises Inspection and Protective Order

Because the parties could not agree on a date for inspecting the subject premises, the court ordered that the inspection occur within 21 days. If the parties could not agree on the date and time, the court would set them.

The parties had each submitted a proposed protective order. The court stated that it would enter later that day a protective order modeled on a publicly available form made available by District Judge Liman.

Disposition

The court resolved the discovery disputes as described above. It sustained the objections to the disputed interrogatories, found no compelling need for the individual defendants’ tax returns, ordered production of Dimur’s financial-related documents within seven days, ordered the premises inspection within 21 days, and stated that it would enter a protective order. The opinion is a discovery-management order rather than a decision on the underlying disability or negligence claims.