Adams v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.

Background

Adams’s counsel submitted a letter concerning a discovery dispute. The letter states that Adams was a physical trainer who was fired from Equinox and contended that the termination was because of her age. It also states that she claimed Equinox treated her worse before the termination, including by assigning her fewer clients and giving her only “cold leads” for new clients.

The letter says the parties met and conferred on February 11, 2022, but did not resolve the dispute. The dispute involved two interrogatories—written questions used in litigation—that Adams served on January 6, 2022.

Interrogatory 17

Adams asked Equinox to provide the names and birth years of all trainers who received her clients when she was terminated. Equinox objected that the request was outside the scope permitted by Local Civil Rule 33.3, defective because it assumed facts not established in the case, and improperly sought a compilation or summary of information.

Adams’s counsel argued that the request was relevant because Adams had been training Equinox clients when she was terminated. Counsel also argued that the question was a contention interrogatory, meaning a question designed to clarify a party’s position after discovery, and therefore was permitted at the close of discovery. The letter cites Adams’s amended complaint, which allegedly stated that her clients were assigned to substantially younger trainers after she was fired.

Interrogatory 18

Adams asked Equinox to provide the names and contact information of advertising agencies that participated in producing fifteen Equinox advertisements. Equinox objected that the request exceeded the scope permitted by Local Civil Rule 33.3 and sought information irrelevant to the claims or defenses.

Adams’s counsel argued that the advertisements were relevant to the contention that Equinox cultivated an image associated with young people. Counsel also argued that asking for the information through an interrogatory was a practical method permitted by Local Civil Rule 33.3. The letter characterized Equinox’s response as inadequate, but that characterization was made by Adams’s counsel.

Court’s action

The opinion text does not show a ruling resolving the discovery dispute or deciding whether Equinox’s objections were valid. Instead, the court directed the defendants to file a response to the letter by February 17, 2022. Judge Cronan therefore took a procedural step requiring a response; the text supplied does not state that the court granted or denied a request for discovery.

Disposition

Defendants shall file a response to the letter by February 17, 2022. No further disposition appears in the supplied text.