Shkreta v. Colonnade Management Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-06134
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shkreta v. Colonnade Management Corporation, Judge Abrams noted a discovery dispute was referred to Judge Fox and deferred another issue for later consideration.
The order concerns Shkreta and the defendants—Colonnade Management Corporation, Columbus Properties Inc., and John DiMurro—and addresses the handling of their deposition dispute and a later jurisdictional issue.
What happened
In Shkreta v. Colonnade Management Corporation, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants wrongly treated her as exempt from overtime and fired her because she was becoming a caregiver. The defendants wanted to question her in person and without a mask, while she wanted the deposition to occur remotely because she was unvaccinated and had an infant at home.
The defendants asked for a conference before seeking an order requiring the in-person deposition and extending the discovery deadline so the plaintiff could be vaccinated. The court noted that this discovery dispute belonged within Judge Fox’s general pretrial referral. The court did not state that it granted or denied the requested deposition relief.
Judge Abrams also said the court would consider the parties’ letters about the plaintiff’s request to decline supplemental jurisdiction over her New York City Human Rights Law claim when it addresses the defendants’ partial summary-judgment motion. The order therefore recorded the referral and deferred that issue rather than deciding either dispute on the merits.
The detailed version
- Shkreta v. Colonnade Management Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-06134
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 10, 2021
Background
Plaintiff Shkreta alleges that Defendants Colonnade Management Corporation, Columbus Properties Inc., and John DiMurro misclassified her as exempt from overtime and terminated her employment because of her impending caregiver status. The defendants stated that credibility would be an important issue at trial.
The parties had informally agreed to take Shkreta’s deposition on June 23, 2021, but disagreed about how it should occur. Shkreta, through counsel, agreed only to a remote deposition because she was not vaccinated and had an infant at home. The defendants sought an in-person, unmasked deposition and offered to postpone it until she had received two vaccine doses and completed the applicable waiting period. They also proposed extending discovery if necessary.
Defendants’ Request
The defendants requested an informal conference before filing a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to compel Shkreta to attend an in-person deposition without a mask. Their letter discussed the court’s authority to order remote depositions under Rule 30(b)(4), pandemic-related guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and employment guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Court’s Action
The court noted that the action had been referred to Judge Fox for general pretrial supervision and that the discovery dispute fell within that referral. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the requested conference, compelled the deposition, required vaccination, or extended discovery.
Separately, the court stated that it would consider the parties’ letters concerning Shkreta’s request that the court decline supplemental jurisdiction—meaning authority over a related state-law claim—over her New York City Human Rights Law claim when it addressed the defendants’ partial motion for summary judgment. The court entered the order without deciding that request or the partial summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.