Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
- Loretta Preska
- 1:20-cv-01390
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Judge Preska received Miller’s request to quash a nonparty subpoena; the text contains no ruling.
Amy Miller, the defendants, and the nonparties Bruce Litvin and Windsor Consultants, Inc.; the provided text does not show a ruling affecting their legal rights.
What happened
In Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Miller’s lawyers asked the court to hold a conference before filing a motion to quash, or cancel, a subpoena served on Bruce Litvin and Windsor Consultants, Inc. The subpoena sought documents and communications about Miller’s employment and job-search efforts.
Miller’s lawyers argued that the subpoena was too broad, sought information with little relevance, duplicated information Miller had already provided, and placed an unnecessary burden on nonparties. They also said the subpoena sought Miller’s private and financial information.
The provided text does not show a ruling on the request. It states that the parties were to appear for a telephone conference about the motion on February 24, 2022, before Judge Loretta A. Preska.
The detailed version
- Amy Miller v. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP · No. 1:20-cv-01390
- Loretta Preska
- Feb. 23, 2022
Nature of the Filing
The provided document is a letter from counsel for Amy Miller requesting a pre-motion conference concerning a proposed motion to quash a subpoena. A motion to quash asks the court to cancel or limit a subpoena. The text does not contain a judicial opinion deciding that motion.
Background
The defendants served a subpoena on nonparties Bruce Litvin and Windsor Consultants, Inc. on December 21, 2021. The subpoena contained 12 requests for documents and communications concerning Miller’s employment with the defendants and her efforts to find another job. The subpoena had a return date of January 26, 2022.
Miller’s counsel stated that, on February 7, 2022, they asked the defendants to withdraw the subpoena. According to the letter, the defendants did not respond to that request or withdraw the subpoena. The letter also states that, on February 18, 2022, the defendants provided a letter faxed by Mr. Litvin summarizing his law-firm-placement work for Miller, without producing documents.
Miller’s Arguments
Miller’s counsel argued that Miller had standing to ask the court to quash the subpoena because the subpoena sought her private and financial information. They further argued that information about her job search was not material to the case, that Miller had already provided the information through discovery, and that the subpoena was duplicative and burdensome to a nonparty. The letter also asserted that the defendants served the subpoena before receiving Miller’s expected electronic-information and supplemental production.
Proceeding Described in the Text
The letter asks the court to issue an order quashing the subpoena and to prevent further efforts to compel Mr. Litvin’s compliance with the document requests. The document states that the parties were to appear for a telephone conference about the motion on February 24, 2022. The provided text does not state that Judge Loretta A. Preska granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on the requested relief.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.