Claridge Associates, LLC v. Schepis

Background

The court addressed the parties’ submissions about a deposition schedule and the plaintiffs’ motion to quash, meaning to cancel or limit, certain third-party subpoenas. The court decided the issues without holding a conference.

Deposition schedule

The court adopted the plaintiffs’ proposed deposition schedule. Although the defendants argued that there was little overlap between the parties in a Connecticut arbitration and the parties in this litigation, defense counsel had previously proposed a similar schedule, and the plaintiffs had agreed to it. The court also declined to order the defendants to depose the plaintiffs’ counsel at that time. It stated that the issue could be addressed later if a trial were scheduled and the lawyer were listed as a trial witness.

Motion to quash

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a party’s claim or defense. The court noted that discovery may be limited when it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or when its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit.

The court found that topics one through eight were arguably relevant because issues remained unresolved, particularly concerning the plaintiffs’ unjust-enrichment and promissory-estoppel claims. However, it found that topics two and eight were highly likely to seek documents protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product privilege. The court also found topic nine unduly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case or the limited relevance of responsive documents.

Ruling

Judge Failla granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to quash the defendants’ third-party subpoenas. The motion was granted as to topics two, eight, and nine, and otherwise denied. The court also adopted the plaintiffs’ proposed deposition schedule.