Robinson v. De Niro

Background

The defendants filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 to require Graham Chase Robinson to amend responses to ten requests for admission or to have the requests treated as admitted. Requests for admission are written discovery requests asking a party to admit or deny facts, the application of law to facts, opinions about those matters, or the authenticity of documents. Robinson opposed the motion, arguing that several requests were compound, vague, undefined, or sought admissions about the defendants’ characterization of documents rather than the documents’ authenticity.

Court’s analysis

The court denied the motion as to Request 3. That request asked Robinson to confirm the Equal Pay Act principle that job content, rather than job title, determines whether jobs are substantially equal. The court held that the request improperly sought a pure admission of law instead of applying the law to particular facts.

The court granted the motion as to Request 7 and ordered Robinson to amend her response. The request asked her to confirm that she claimed in the lawsuit that she, a woman, was paid less than Dan Harvey, a man employed as Robert De Niro’s personal trainer. The court held that the request properly sought to identify the alleged pay comparator and rejected Robinson’s objections that her complaint spoke for itself or that the request was cumulative or mischaracterized Harvey’s duties.

The court denied the motion as to Request 23. That request concerned whether Robinson lacked sufficient knowledge about whether her job and Harvey’s job shared material duties or responsibilities. The court found her response proper and concluded that the request was not relevant to the claims or defenses or useful for narrowing issues for trial. The court stated that the relevant inquiry concerned the jobs’ actual duties, not Robinson’s knowledge about Harvey’s duties before the lawsuit.

As to Requests 31, 34, and 35, the court found that the requests concerned statements in a recommendation letter that Robinson wrote for De Niro to sign about her employment. The court found Requests 31 and 34 duplicative and directed that they be rephrased. The court stated that Robinson should be asked separately whether she had described her job as involving specified responsibilities and whether the duties listed in the letter accurately described those responsibilities. The court found Request 35 proper and required Robinson to answer it.

The court also found Requests 43, 47, 49, and 61 generally proper. Those requests concerned whether Robinson routinely traveled with De Niro while he was filming or on location, whether she had a workspace in Canal Productions’ office, whether she had an assistant, and whether Harvey lacked access to a corporate SkyMiles account. The court rejected Robinson’s vagueness objections and ordered her to amend her responses to all four requests. For Request 61, however, the court explained that Robinson had to provide an answer only if she knew whether Harvey had access; otherwise, she should state that she lacked that knowledge.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the defendants’ motion to compel Robinson’s admissions was granted as to Requests 7, 35, 43, 47, 49, and 61 and denied as to Requests 3 and 23. Requests 31 and 34 were to be rephrased as described by the court. The ruling was a discovery order and did not decide the underlying employment claims. Judge Katharine H. Parker signed the opinion on January 11, 2022.