Watkins v. Anthony T. Rinaldi, LLC
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-08457
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Watkins v. Anthony T. Rinaldi, LLC, Judge Cott granted defendants’ request in part, ordering Watkins’s deposition and payment of related costs.
The order directly affected Watkins and the defendants. Watkins had to attend another one-hour deposition by April 28 and pay the deposition costs and the $400 cancellation fee; the defendants could renew their evidence and attorney’s-fee requests later.
What happened
In Watkins v. Anthony T. Rinaldi, LLC, the defendants said Watkins produced documents about his efforts to reduce his damages one hour before a scheduled deposition, violating an earlier court order. Watkins did not explain the late production and argued only that he had not yet used the documents in a motion or at trial.
The defendants asked the court to bar Watkins from using evidence about reducing his damages, declare the new documents inadmissible, draw a negative conclusion against him on that issue, require another deposition, and award costs and attorney’s fees. The court said the evidence-related requests could be addressed later in a pretrial or summary-judgment motion.
Judge Cott granted the request for another one-hour deposition, which had to occur by April 28, and ordered Watkins to pay the deposition costs and the $400 cancellation fee. The court denied the request for attorney’s fees without prejudice to renewal later and directed the clerk to mark the motion “granted in part and denied in part.”
The detailed version
- Watkins v. Anthony T. Rinaldi, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08457
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 29, 2021
Background
The defendants filed a letter-motion concerning Watkins’s production of documents related to his efforts to mitigate, or reduce, his damages. The documents were produced one hour before Watkins’s court-ordered deposition on March 11, 2021. The defendants argued that this violated the court’s November 12, 2020 order, which stated that mitigation documents not previously produced could not be used in motion practice or at trial. Watkins did not explain the late production and argued that he had not violated the order because he had not attempted to use the documents in a motion or at trial.
Requests
The defendants asked the court to preclude Watkins from offering evidence about mitigation in a future motion or at trial. Alternatively, they asked the court to rule that the supplemental documents were inadmissible, impose an adverse inference on mitigation, require Watkins to return for a one-hour deposition within 30 days, award the $400 cancellation fee, and award attorney’s fees for making the application.
Rulings
The court declined to rule at that time on whether mitigation evidence should be precluded. It also declined to rule that the supplemental documents were inadmissible or that an adverse inference should be imposed. The court stated that those requests could be raised in a motion in limine during pretrial submissions or in summary-judgment motion practice. The court made those requests available for later application without prejudice.
Judge James L. Cott granted the request for Watkins to return for a one-hour deposition. The deposition had to occur no later than April 28. Because Watkins made the late production, the court ordered him to bear the deposition costs and the $400 cancellation fee. The court denied the request for attorney’s fees without prejudice to renewal at a later stage. The clerk was directed to mark the defendants’ motion, Docket No. 46, “granted in part and denied in part.”
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning discovery and related costs. It did not decide whether the mitigation evidence would ultimately be admissible or whether Watkins had proved his damages.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.