Rekor Systems, Inc. v. Loughlin
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-07767
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rekor Systems v. Loughlin, Judge Liman denied one discovery request, granted two others, and allowed narrower inquiry.
Rekor Systems, Inc. must provide the discovery ordered for the second and third categories. The defendants may pursue the first category through written questions and a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, subject to the court’s stated conditions.
What happened
In Rekor Systems, Inc. v. Loughlin, several defendants and CrisisRisk asked the court to require Rekor Systems, Inc. to provide discovery materials.
They sought information about Suzanne Loughlin’s alleged supervisory duties, evaluations or investigations of the defendants, and evaluations or investigations of Robert A. Berman.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the first request as too broad and burdensome, but allowed related questions and a deposition; he granted the requests for the second and third categories.
The detailed version
- Rekor Systems, Inc. v. Loughlin · No. 1:19-cv-07767
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 25, 2020
Background
Satterfield, Loughlin, Rhulen, and additional counterclaim-plaintiff CrisisRisk (the “Moving Parties”) asked the court to compel Rekor Systems, Inc. (“Rekor”) to provide discovery. Discovery is the exchange of information and documents relevant to a lawsuit.
Requests for Discovery
The Moving Parties sought three categories of materials:
- Materials concerning Rekor’s allegation that Loughlin had supervisory duties involving Firestorm. They argued that these materials related to Rekor’s claim that Loughlin supervised Satterfield while he engaged in wrongdoing at Rekor.
- Materials concerning evaluations, employee reviews, or investigations of the defendants. They argued that these materials related to Rekor’s allegations of misconduct and Rhulen’s claim that his employment agreement was breached by his demotion.
- Materials concerning evaluations and investigations of counterclaim defendant Robert A. Berman, including materials arising from complaints by Rhulen, Satterfield, and Rekor’s former chief financial officer, Carl Kumpf. The Moving Parties argued that these materials related to their counterclaims against Berman.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that discovery relevance is broad but not unlimited. Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery must also be proportional to the needs of the case and may not be unduly burdensome. The court may order a different discovery method when there is good cause to protect a party.
Ruling
The court denied the motion to compel as to the first category because the request, as drafted, was too broad and burdensome. Instead, the court authorized the defendants to pursue that category through written questions and a deposition of a Rekor representative under Rule 30(b)(6). The defendants could renew the request if Rekor did not produce an appropriate representative or answer the written questions.
The court granted the motion to compel discovery as to the second and third categories, finding that the requested materials were relevant, proportional to the needs of the case, and not unduly burdensome. Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.