Elavon, Inc. v. Northeast Advance Technologies Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:15-cv-07985
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Elavon, Inc. v. Northeast Advance Technologies Inc., Judge Karas granted the Friedmans’ request to stay disputed discovery pending their objections.
Defendants Joel and Rivky Friedman, plaintiff Elavon, Inc., and nonparty Transmedia Payment Services, Ltd.; the order temporarily pauses the disputed discovery pending resolution of the Friedmans’ objections.
What happened
Elavon, Inc. v. Northeast Advance Technologies Inc. involves discovery concerning communications between defendants Joel and Rivky Friedman and nonparty Transmedia Payment Services, Ltd. The Friedmans had objected to a magistrate judge’s discovery order.
The Friedmans asked the court to pause enforcement of that order and a subpoena Elavon served on Transmedia. They argued that disclosure could compromise materials they claimed were protected by privilege and could not be undone later.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the stay pending a decision on the Friedmans’ objections. The order did not decide whether the communications were privileged or resolve the objections.
The detailed version
- Elavon, Inc. v. Northeast Advance Technologies Inc. · No. 7:15-cv-07985
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
Defendants Joel and Rivky Friedman, through their attorney, submitted a letter motion seeking a stay of discovery. The discovery concerned communications between the Friedmans and nonparty Transmedia Payment Services, Ltd. The request followed objections to a December 10, 2020 memorandum and order issued by Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison.
The request
The Friedmans asked the court to stay enforcement of the magistrate judge’s order and compliance with a later subpoena that plaintiff Elavon, Inc. served on Transmedia. They asserted that the communications and documents involved claims of privilege. Their letter argued that disclosure before the court decided the objections could permanently destroy the protection they claimed, because later relief could not undo disclosure.
Ruling
The court granted the stay pending determination of the Friedmans’ objections. Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not, in this order, decide whether the materials were privileged or rule on the underlying objections.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.