Shove v. Intelligrated Systems, Inc.
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-10205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Shove v. Intelligrated, Judge Vyskocil denied Defendants’ subpoena request and Plaintiff’s request to depose additional witnesses.
Bradley Shove, whose request to depose two additional witnesses was denied, and Intelligrated Systems, Inc. and Honeywell International, Inc., whose request to subpoena Shove’s subsequent employers was denied. The order also set additional filing and conference requirements for all parties.
What happened
In Shove v. Intelligrated Systems, Inc., Bradley Shove alleges that he was fired after reporting another employee’s racial slurs and sexist language at work.
Defendants sought permission to subpoena records from Shove’s subsequent employers, including applications, compensation, job performance, termination reasons, and complaints. Shove objected because the subpoenas could harm his future employment prospects and said he had already provided records of his post-termination income and benefits.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Defendants’ request to subpoena the records and denied Shove’s request to depose two additional witnesses. The court also ordered a telephone post-discovery conference and required the parties to submit a joint status letter and any required materials concerning possible post-discovery motions.
The detailed version
- Shove v. Intelligrated Systems, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10205
- Ona Wang
- Jan. 15, 2021
Background
This employment discrimination case concerns Bradley Shove’s allegation that he was fired after reporting another employee’s use of racial slurs and sexist language in the workplace.
Defendants asked to subpoena Shove’s subsequent employers for his employment applications; employment terms, including pay, benefits, and compensation; job-performance information; reasons for any termination; and complaints, grievances, or claims made by or about him during his employment. Defendants argued that these records were relevant because a person claiming employment discrimination must try to reduce financial losses after the alleged discrimination.
Shove opposed the subpoenas because of their potential negative effect on his future employment. He stated that, because he works as an itinerant electrician/installer on large projects, his past employers could also be potential future employers. He also represented that he had already provided Defendants with records of his post-termination income and information about fringe benefits. Shove further argued that, if discovery were extended to allow the subpoenas, he should be allowed to depose two additional witnesses.
Rulings
The court found that a conference under Local Rule 37.2 was unnecessary. It denied Defendants’ request to subpoena Shove’s subsequent employers based on Shove’s representation that he had already provided records of his post-termination income. The court stated that Defendants could file a letter by January 20, 2021, asking for another discovery conference if they disputed that representation.
The court denied Shove’s request to depose additional witnesses. It ordered the parties to attend a telephone post-discovery conference on January 29, 2021, and required them to file a joint status letter and pre-motion submissions for any post-discovery motions seeking to resolve the case before trial by January 22, 2021. The clerk was directed to terminate the letter motion at docket entry 33.
Effect
The order resolved the discovery requests described in the parties’ letters but did not decide the underlying employment discrimination claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.