SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-00209
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski, Judge Katherine Polk Failla temporarily stayed destruction of confidential documents while considering subpoenas for a related state case.
The temporary stay affects SFM Realty Corp. and Patricia Lemanski, as well as counsel handling the confidential documents covered by the protective order.
What happened
SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski involved a request by Patricia Lemanski’s lawyer to use documents covered by a protective order in a recently filed New York state case. The state case concerns claims that SFM Realty Corp. wrongfully filed and pursued the federal case.
The lawyer asked the court to let counsel comply with subpoenas seeking documents from the federal case, including documents marked confidential or attorneys’ eyes only. Alternatively, the lawyer asked the court to pause the February 3, 2021 deadline to return or destroy those documents while the parties addressed the request.
The court directed the parties to submit letters about their positions by January 29, 2021, and granted the request for a temporary stay of the destruction deadline. Judge Katherine Polk Failla stated that the stay would remain in effect until the court decided whether to authorize compliance with the subpoenas.
The detailed version
- SFM Realty Corp. v. Lemanski · No. 1:20-cv-00209
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 15, 2021
Background
SFM Realty Corp. had voluntarily dismissed this federal action. A protective order required the receiving party to return or destroy confidential and attorneys’-eyes-only documents within 30 days after the action’s final disposition. The court’s January 4, 2021 order set February 3, 2021, as the deadline for returning or destroying the documents.
Patricia Lemanski’s counsel told the court that Lemanski had filed a state-court action against SFM Realty Corp. The state action includes claims that SFM wrongfully filed and prosecuted the federal action. Counsel sought permission for counsel in the federal action to comply with proposed subpoenas in the state action and provide confidential documents to counsel handling that case. Counsel alternatively requested a limited stay of the February 3 deadline so the parties could address a motion to modify the protective order.
The Court’s Action
The court directed the parties to submit letters stating their positions on the application by January 29, 2021. It granted the request for a temporary stay of the deadline for destroying confidential documents. The stay remains in effect until the court issues a decision on whether to authorize counsel’s compliance with the subpoenas. The opinion does not decide whether the subpoenas may ultimately be served or whether the documents may ultimately be used in the state action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.