Sheindlin v. Brady

Background

Gregory Sheindlin brought a defamation case against James Brady based on statements Brady allegedly made after Sheindlin represented one of Brady’s adversaries in collecting a $1.7 million judgment against Brady. The opinion identifies the central alleged statement as the accusation that Sheindlin “stole $1.7 million dollars from him.” Brady relied on a truth defense, arguing that the accusation was true because Sheindlin allegedly fraudulently misrepresented a 2015 jury verdict in an earlier state-court case.

Brady issued about 20 subpoenas to nonparties, including seven current or former New York state judges, three federal judges, three elected officials, two former attorneys, real estate developers, a New York Post reporter, and others. District Judge Lewis Liman had temporarily barred Brady from serving additional subpoenas and had stayed enforcement of subpoenas already served. The case was later referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for general pretrial matters.

Legal standards

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery may concern nonprivileged information that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 allows subpoenas to nonparties and permits a nonparty to move to quash, or invalidate, a subpoena. The party issuing a subpoena must show that the requested information is relevant and material to the claims or defenses.

The court explained that the discovery relevant to Brady’s truth defense concerned whether Sheindlin fraudulently misrepresented the 2015 jury verdict. The court did not decide the truth-defense issue or the merits of the defamation claim.

Rulings on the subpoenas

The court granted the New York State Office of Court Administration’s letter motion to quash the subpoenas issued to current and former New York state judges. It held that Brady had not shown that those judges possessed relevant factual knowledge that was highly pertinent and available only from them. The court also quashed the subpoena to retired Justice Shirley Kornreich.

The court quashed the subpoenas to District Judges Paul Engelmayer and Lewis Liman and Magistrate Judge Ona Wang. It concluded that any statements by those judges about the state-court jury verdict would reflect legal analysis rather than unique factual knowledge.

The court granted the New York County District Attorney’s Office’s letter motion to quash the subpoena to District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. It also quashed, on its own authority, the subpoenas to Governor Andrew Cuomo and Attorney General Letitia James. Brady had not shown that these officials had unique personal knowledge relevant to the claims or defenses.

The court also quashed, on its own authority, the subpoena to New York Post reporter Kathianne Boniello. Brady said he needed her testimony for a defamation counterclaim, but the court stated that Brady did not then have a defamation counterclaim and had not shown that her information was relevant to Sheindlin’s claim or Brady’s truth defense.

Remaining subpoenas and future discovery

The court declined to rule on the remaining subpoenas at that time. It lifted the stay against enforcement of and compliance with those subpoenas and stated that it would resolve disputes about them when presented. The court kept in place the stay against serving further subpoenas and required Brady to obtain the court’s permission before issuing any additional subpoenas.

Disposition

The court granted both letter motions to quash; quashed the subpoenas to the specified state judges and District Attorney Vance; quashed the subpoenas to Judges Engelmayer and Liman, Magistrate Judge Wang, Governor Cuomo, Attorney General James, and reporter Boniello; lifted the stay concerning the remaining subpoenas; and maintained the requirement that Brady obtain leave before serving further subpoenas. Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s order was a discovery ruling and did not resolve the underlying defamation dispute.