Xia v. 65 West 87th Street Housing Development Fund Corporation

Background

Plaintiffs Eva Xia and Paul Privitera sued 65 West 87th Street Housing Development Fund Corporation and other defendants. According to the plaintiffs’ letter, they alleged that the defendants discriminated against them based on race by refusing to approve their purchase of an apartment in the defendants’ housing cooperative building. The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss, which was still pending. The court had allowed discovery to proceed while that motion was pending.

Discovery dispute

The plaintiffs asked for a conference under the court’s local discovery procedures. They identified three areas of dispute:

1. Discovery responses. The plaintiffs said the defendants had answered nearly all of their document requests and interrogatories with general objections about scope, clarity, and burden. They argued that the defendants had not stated whether they were withholding documents because of those objections, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. The plaintiffs also said the defendants had promised updated responses but had not provided them.

2. Electronic-document searches and production. The parties had been negotiating search terms for electronically stored information, or ESI. The plaintiffs said the parties had resolved all but one disagreement about a search term, but the defendants had not explained their objection or confirmed that they would run the searches and produce responsive documents. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants had produced 569 pages in August, most of which consisted of the plaintiffs’ purchase application, and had produced no additional documents since then.

3. Redactions and privilege log. The plaintiffs had subpoenaed documents from Sandra Balan and Samantha Pinkowitz. After reviewing those materials, the plaintiffs sent them to the defendants for a privilege review because an attorney involved in the real-estate transaction appeared in some emails. The defendants returned redacted documents, but the plaintiffs said the defendants had not provided a privilege log—a list identifying the redacted materials and explaining the basis for withholding or redacting them.

Court’s action

Judge Ramos’s endorsement allowed the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ arguments by December 10, 2020. It also set a remote telephone discovery conference for December 16, 2020, at 9:45 a.m., and instructed the parties how to call in.

The text provided does not show a ruling requiring the defendants to provide the requested discovery, resolving the defendants’ motion to dismiss, or deciding the discrimination claims. The order therefore concerned management of the discovery process rather than the merits of the lawsuit.