Sheindlin v. Brady
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-01124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sheindlin v. Brady, Judge Aaron denied Brady’s subpoena requests and quashed three subpoenas because the requested testimony was not relevant.
James Brady’s requests to subpoena Steve Wagner, Bonnie Berkow, and Jeffrey Katz were denied, and the three subpoenas were quashed. Gregory Sheindlin, Wagner, Berkow, and Katz were affected by the ruling; Brady may still seek permission to depose the witnesses if Sheindlin offers their testimony at or before trial.
What happened
Sheindlin v. Brady is a defamation case involving statements James Brady made about Gregory Sheindlin after Sheindlin represented one of Brady’s adversaries in collecting a $1.7 million judgment against Brady.
Brady asked for permission to subpoena testimony from his former attorneys, Steve Wagner and Bonnie Berkow, and to serve a new subpoena on real estate developer Jeffrey Katz. He argued that the witnesses could support his claims about jury findings, prior litigation, and filing restrictions imposed on him.
The court denied Brady’s applications and quashed all three subpoenas because the requested testimony was not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Judge Aaron also noted that the requests were untimely because discovery had already closed, but allowed Brady to seek permission to depose the witnesses if Sheindlin introduced their testimony at or before trial.
The detailed version
- Sheindlin v. Brady · No. 1:21-cv-01124
- Lewis Liman
- June 9, 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 adversaries in collecting a $1.7 million judgment against Brady.
The opinion addressed three subpoenas—court orders requiring a person to provide testimony or other information. Brady sought leave to serve subpoenas for testimony from his former attorneys, Steve Wagner and Bonnie Berkow, and sought leave to re-serve a subpoena on real estate developer Jeffrey Katz.
The Wagner and Berkow Subpoenas
Brady argued that Wagner and Berkow could testify that lawyers, including Sheindlin, had fraudulently misrepresented what jury interrogatory sheets determined. The court held that the substance and legal significance of a jury verdict are matters of legal interpretation. Because a fact witness’s personal knowledge would not be relevant to that interpretation, the court denied Brady’s application and quashed the subpoenas for Wagner and Berkow.
The Katz Subpoena
Brady argued that Katz could testify about the so-called “air rights litigation,” including whether Brady had been the victim of an adverse decision and the reasons judges had imposed filing injunctions against him. The court rejected these arguments, reasoning that the course and outcome of the litigation and the filing injunctions were matters of public record. The court further held that analyzing those matters involved legal interpretation, making witness testimony irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. The court denied Brady’s application and quashed the subpoena for Katz.
Other Grounds and Disposition
The court also noted that Brady’s applications were untimely because discovery had closed on June 1, 2021. The opinion states that Brady had not made a later request to extend discovery and had not shown the required good cause to modify the discovery schedule.
The court ordered that Brady’s applications for leave to serve subpoenas on Wagner and Berkow and on Katz were DENIED, and that the three subpoenas were QUASHED. The court did not rule at that time on Brady’s separate request concerning New York Post reporter Kathianne Boniello. If Sheindlin sought to introduce testimony from Wagner, Berkow, or Katz at or before trial, Brady could move for permission to take depositions concerning that offered testimony. The Clerk was directed to mail the opinion and order to Brady, whom the opinion identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.