Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
- Loretta Preska
- 1:20-cv-01390
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, Judge Preska set a response deadline for Miller’s protective-order request without deciding it.
Amy Miller and the defendants, including Eduard Korsinsky and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, were affected by the response deadline; the requested recording-production and deposition procedures were not decided in the provided text.
What happened
In Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Amy Miller asked the court to temporarily delay production of four audio recordings until after defendant Eduard Korsinsky’s deposition and to schedule his deposition first. She argued that producing the recordings earlier could allow him to tailor his testimony.
Miller’s attorneys said the recordings concerned her employment and alleged sex discrimination at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. They also argued that the defendants had requested the recordings repeatedly and that delaying production would preserve Korsinsky’s unrefreshed recollection while allowing the defendants to review the recordings before Miller’s deposition.
Judge Loretta A. Preska ordered the defendants to file any response by January 12, 2022. The provided text does not show a ruling on Miller’s requested protective order or the deposition sequence.
The detailed version
- Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP · No. 1:20-cv-01390
- Loretta Preska
- Jan. 10, 2022
Document and procedural posture
The provided text is a letter from counsel for Amy Miller requesting a temporary protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The requested order would have required defendant Eduard Korsinsky to be deposed first and would have allowed Miller to delay producing four audio recordings until after his deposition but before Miller’s deposition.
The court’s endorsement states that the defendants must file any response by Wednesday, January 12, 2022. The text does not include a later ruling granting or denying the protective-order request.
Miller’s request and stated reasons
Miller’s counsel stated that she made the four recordings to preserve evidence related to alleged sex discrimination and other claims concerning her employment at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. The recordings reportedly included a March 28, 2019 termination meeting involving Miller, Korsinsky, and the firm’s human-resources manager; a discussion about case status; and two discussions before a March 2019 mediation involving McKesson Corporation.
Miller’s counsel argued that the defendants had sought recordings in multiple discovery requests and that producing them before Korsinsky’s deposition could allow him to tailor his testimony. Counsel also argued that Korsinsky had participated in the recorded conversations and therefore did not need the recordings to refresh his memory before testifying, while Miller had an interest in obtaining his present recollection of the events.
Court action
Judge Loretta A. Preska set a deadline for the defendants’ response. Based on the provided text, the court did not otherwise rule on the requested protective order, the timing of production, or the order of the depositions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.