Sheindlin v. Brady
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-01124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Sheindlin v. Brady, Magistrate Judge Aaron granted motions to quash three subpoenas because the requested testimony was irrelevant or disproportionate.
The ruling directly affected James Brady’s efforts to obtain discovery from nonparties Phillipe Ifrah, Robert Fass, and Frank H. McCourt, and preserved a possible process for Brady to seek their depositions if Gregory Sheindlin later offered their testimony.
What happened
Sheindlin v. Brady is a defamation case involving statements James Brady made about attorney Gregory Sheindlin after Sheindlin represented an opposing party in collecting a $1.7 million judgment against Brady. The court considered requests to cancel subpoenas directed to Phillipe Ifrah, Robert Fass, and Frank H. McCourt, who were not parties to the case.
The court ruled that Ifrah and Fass could not provide relevant personal knowledge about the meaning of a jury’s answers in an earlier related proceeding because that was a matter for legal interpretation. It also ruled that McCourt’s testimony was not relevant to Sheindlin’s claims, Brady’s proposed defenses, or Brady’s counterclaims, and that any possible benefit would not justify the burden of the subpoena. The court also warned Brady, who was representing himself, that unsupported accusations against judges could lead to penalties.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted both motions to quash and quashed all three subpoenas. The court allowed Brady to seek permission to depose any of the three witnesses if Sheindlin later sought to use their testimony at or before trial.
The detailed version
- Sheindlin v. Brady · No. 1:21-cv-01124
- Lewis Liman
- June 6, 2021
Background
Gregory Sheindlin brought this defamation case against James Brady based on statements Brady made about Sheindlin after Sheindlin represented one of Brady’s opponents in collecting a $1.7 million judgment against Brady in an earlier related proceeding.
The court considered two letter motions asking it to quash, or cancel, subpoenas issued by Brady. One motion concerned subpoenas to Phillipe Ifrah and Ifrah’s former attorney, Robert Fass. The other concerned a subpoena to real estate developer Frank H. McCourt, Jr. The court had previously quashed other subpoenas issued by Brady, including subpoenas directed to judges, elected officials, and a reporter.
Subpoenas to Ifrah and Fass
Brady argued that Ifrah and Fass could testify about the meaning and legal significance of answers to jury interrogatories in the earlier related proceeding. The court concluded that the jury had resolved the factual questions before it, while the meaning and legal significance of the verdict were matters of legal interpretation. Because Ifrah and Fass could not have relevant personal knowledge about that legal interpretation, the court quashed their subpoenas.
Subpoena to McCourt
Brady offered two reasons for subpoenaing McCourt. First, Brady argued that McCourt could testify about separate litigation involving air rights and about an alleged pattern of conduct by people involved in Brady’s other lawsuits. The court rejected that argument because the air-rights litigation was not directly relevant to Sheindlin’s claims, which concerned statements about the earlier related proceeding. The court also said that Brady’s litigation history could be shown through public information and that Brady had not plausibly identified unique relevant knowledge McCourt possessed.
The court further ruled that any such discovery would not be proportional to the needs of the case. In other words, the likely benefit did not justify the burden of obtaining McCourt’s testimony, particularly given the substantial public record.
Second, Brady argued that McCourt could help prove that statements in an April 3, 2021 New York Post article about Brady were false and defamatory. The court noted that Brady’s counterclaims were not yet resolved as to their timeliness or legal sufficiency. Even assuming discovery on those counterclaims could proceed, the court found that McCourt’s personal knowledge could not plausibly establish whether the article’s statements were true or false. The court also again found that the proposed discovery would not be proportional.
The court rejected Brady’s unsupported accusations that judges had been improperly influenced or bribed. It warned that continuing to make baseless accusations against court officials could result in sanctions, or penalties imposed for improper litigation conduct.
Disposition
The court granted both letter motions to quash, identified as ECF Nos. 81 and 85, and quashed the subpoenas issued to Ifrah, Fass, and McCourt. The court did not bar all possible testimony from those witnesses: if Sheindlin sought to introduce testimony from any of them at or before trial, Brady could ask for permission to take depositions concerning that testimony. The order addressed discovery and did not decide the merits of the defamation claims or counterclaims.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron, a United States Magistrate Judge, issued and signed the order.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.