Stewart v. Stewart

Background

The court addressed the parties’ latest discovery disputes, which were presented in letters dated June 1, June 4, June 18, and June 23, 2021. The disputes concerned documents about the ownership of Topaze/DGBF and the jewelry at issue, defendant’s divorce file, plaintiff’s deposition, and plaintiff’s compliance with earlier discovery orders.

Rulings on Discovery

The court had previously directed defendant to make a good-faith effort to obtain an affidavit from John Iglehart stating either that he no longer possessed, controlled, or had custody of documents concerning ownership of Topaze/DGBF, or that he had destroyed those documents. Defendant reported that Iglehart said the “Bar Association” would not permit him to testify or provide an affidavit because of his role as counsel to members of the Stewart family. The court expressed skepticism about that explanation but provided another solution. Each party had one week to consent to Iglehart releasing all relevant documents to both parties at the same time. If he no longer had the documents, he was to provide an affidavit stating that he had destroyed them. The court warned that a party’s failure to provide consent could result in an adverse inference, meaning the court could draw an unfavorable conclusion from that failure.

Plaintiff had requested documents from defendant’s divorce file showing defendant’s ownership, or lack of ownership, of the jewelry. Defendant had produced only a 2006 expert report submitted to a Swiss court in connection with her divorce. The court directed defendant to clarify what steps she had taken to locate additional documents in that file before defendant’s deposition.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings. It stated that the motion would be premature given the status of the case.

Plaintiff’s Deposition

Defendant sought to depose plaintiff in New York. Plaintiff objected based on COVID-19 and New York summer heat. The court rejected those reasons, stating that a party who files a lawsuit in a forum must appear there for a deposition. The court also found that a remote deposition was not an adequate substitute because plaintiff would be available for only limited hours. The opinion therefore required plaintiff to appear for the deposition in New York.

Jewelry-Related Disclosures and Contempt Request

Defendant sought to hold plaintiff in contempt for violating earlier orders requiring searches for documents about plaintiff’s jewelry. Plaintiff argued that she did not have to provide information about a ring because she had sold it before the lawsuit began. The court rejected that argument, explaining that its earlier statement about valuation did not remove ownership from the case. The court found that plaintiff had not made all the ordered disclosures concerning all jewelry she had owned during her lifetime. Rather than immediately impose contempt, the court gave plaintiff one final opportunity to make full and accurate disclosures within one week. The opinion does not state a separate disposition of the contempt request.

Disposition

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings and issued the discovery and disclosure directives described above. The order is a procedural discovery ruling and does not decide the underlying ownership dispute.