Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
- Loretta Preska
- 1:20-cv-01390
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Judge Preska granted a protective order and granted defendants’ motion to compel in part.
Amy Miller must delay producing the audio recordings until after Eduard Korinsky’s deposition, then produce them within the specified 48-hour period. She must provide certain compensation records and sworn statements, but need not produce tax returns or medical records about emotional distress under the stated conditions. The defendants receive the compensation information and the delayed recordings.
What happened
In Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Amy Miller asked to delay producing four audio recordings until after Eduard Korinsky’s deposition. The defendants asked for documents about Miller’s financial losses, income, and emotional-distress damages.
The court granted Miller’s request. Korinsky’s deposition had to occur before Miller’s, and Miller had to produce the recordings within 48 hours after Korinsky signed his deposition transcript. The court also granted the defendants’ request in part: Miller did not have to produce tax returns, but she had to provide documents showing the parts of her compensation and an oath confirming that the documents covered all income from her professional practice.
Judge Preska denied the request for medical records about emotional distress, subject to Miller’s sworn statements limiting her claim to ordinary emotional distress and barring her from relying on therapy, psychological care, or a diagnosis to prove those damages. The order concerned discovery and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP · No. 1:20-cv-01390
- Loretta Preska
- Jan. 26, 2022
Background
The court considered two discovery motions. Amy Miller sought a temporary protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allowing her to delay producing four audio recordings of meetings from the first quarter of 2019 until after Eduard Korinsky’s deposition. She argued that delaying production would help preserve Korinsky’s own recollection and prevent his testimony from being shaped by the recordings.
The defendants moved to compel two categories of materials concerning Miller’s claimed damages: documents about financial losses and mitigation, including compensation information, and documents supporting claimed emotional-distress damages.
Audio recordings and depositions
The court found that Miller had shown good cause for the temporary protective order. It granted the request and ordered that Korinsky’s deposition be scheduled before Miller’s deposition. The order would expire 48 hours after Korinsky signed his deposition transcript. Miller then had to produce the recordings within that 48-hour period, and her deposition had to be scheduled far enough afterward for the defendants to review the recordings.
Financial-damages discovery
The defendants’ request for Miller’s tax returns was denied. The court stated that, even assuming the returns were relevant, the defendants had not shown a compelling need for them. Miller therefore did not have to produce her tax returns.
The court granted the defendants’ request for other compensation documents, such as paystubs, showing the breakdown of Miller’s compensation into salary, bonuses, incentives, rewards, and similar categories. Miller also had to provide a statement under oath confirming that the produced documents reflected all income, in any form, from her professional practice.
Emotional-distress discovery
The defendants sought medical records supporting what they described as a claim of severe emotional distress. Miller stated that she was seeking damages only for ordinary, or “garden variety,” emotional distress and did not intend to rely on medical testimony.
In light of those concessions, the court denied the request for this category of documents, subject to Miller providing a sworn statement that her damages claim was limited to garden variety emotional distress and that she would not refer to or introduce evidence concerning therapy, psychological care, or a diagnosis to prove those damages.
Disposition
Judge Preska granted Miller’s motion for a temporary protective order and granted in part the defendants’ motion to compel. The clerk was directed to close the two motions. This was a discovery order rather than a decision on the underlying claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.