Cousin v. Gordon & Silber, P.C.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-02661
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cousin v. Gordon & Silber, Judge Schofield denied a discovery-extension request and granted Gordon & Silber’s request to compel limited document production.
Wayne E. Cousin must produce additional responsive documents from the period when he was employed by Gordon & Silber, P.C., if he has not already produced them. The parties’ request to extend discovery was denied but could be renewed by September 18, 2020 with the required information.
What happened
Cousin v. Gordon & Silber concerns a dispute over documents in Wayne E. Cousin’s case against Gordon & Silber, P.C. and Arthur Cohen. The underlying case includes Cousin’s claim that Gordon & Silber breached an employment agreement by not paying him for up to 180 days after his departure.
Gordon & Silber sought documents about Cousin’s employment with Sheeley LLP, the transfer of cases from Gordon & Silber to Sheeley, and communications with Gordon & Silber clients or insurers. Gordon & Silber said the documents could show whether Cousin was available during the 180-day notice period. Cousin argued that the requests were unrelated, overly broad, burdensome, privileged, or intended to harass him.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the request to extend discovery, but allowed the parties to renew it by September 18, 2020 with additional information. Judge Schofield granted Gordon & Silber’s request to compel production of responsive documents from the period when Cousin was still employed there, limited to documents not already produced.
The detailed version
- Cousin v. Gordon & Silber, P.C. · No. 1:20-cv-02661
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 16, 2020
Background
The opinion consists of a joint letter addressing a discovery dispute and a request to extend the discovery deadline. The underlying case includes Cousin’s claim that Gordon & Silber, P.C. breached his employment agreement by allegedly accelerating his departure and failing to pay him up to approximately 180 days of salary. Gordon & Silber contended that Cousin did not give the required 180 days’ notice and therefore was not eligible for the pay he seeks.
Gordon & Silber sought documents concerning three subjects: Cousin’s employment by Sheeley LLP; requests to transfer cases from Gordon & Silber to Cousin or Sheeley; and communications between Cousin and Gordon & Silber’s clients or insurers concerning his employment or intended employment with Sheeley. Gordon & Silber argued that the documents were relevant to whether Cousin was available during the 180-day notice period and that the requests were proportional to the needs of the case.
Cousin had produced documents concerning case transfers, including consent-to-change-attorney forms, but argued that the requests for offer letters, employment agreements, and communications were not reasonably related to the claims or defenses. He also argued that the request concerning client and insurer communications was insufficiently limited in time, burdensome, potentially privileged, and intended to harass him. The parties also jointly requested that the discovery deadline be extended through December 18, 2020.
Court’s Rulings
The court denied the application to extend discovery, without prejudice to renewal by September 18, 2020. The court required any renewed request to identify completed and outstanding discovery and, if depositions remained, identify the witnesses and proposed deposition dates.
The court granted Gordon & Silber’s application to compel responses to Document Requests 9, 10, and 11 for substantially the same reasons stated by Gordon & Silber. Cousin was ordered to produce responsive documents only from the period when he was still employed by Gordon & Silber and only to the extent the documents had not already been produced.
Effect of the Order
The order resolved the described discovery dispute; it did not decide whether Gordon & Silber breached the employment agreement or whether Cousin was entitled to payment under it. The opinion does not state whether the discovery deadline was later extended.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.