Pang v. Cushman & Wakefield
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-10019
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pang v. Cushman & Wakefield, Magistrate Judge Netburn denied Pang’s request to reconsider an earlier order denying his motion to compel discovery.
Ivan To Man Pang’s efforts to obtain additional discovery from Cushman & Wakefield and its defendants were affected; the ruling also preserved nonparty Shelly Paul’s privacy interests regarding her leave records.
What happened
In Pang v. Cushman & Wakefield, Ivan To Man Pang asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his motion to compel discovery. He sought a nonparty employee’s leave records and emails concerning other employees’ work and evaluations.
Pang argued that the information could support his gender-discrimination claim and show that other employees received more favorable evaluations without justification. The court said he had not identified a controlling decision or information that it had overlooked. It also explained that the leave records implicated the nonparty’s privacy interests and that searching for more emails would be burdensome and duplicative.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn denied the motion for reconsideration. The court denied it both because Pang did not meet the strict reconsideration standard and, alternatively, because the earlier discovery rulings were proper.
The detailed version
- Pang v. Cushman & Wakefield · No. 1:20-cv-10019
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 2, 2022
Background
Pang timely moved under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the court’s February 17, 2022 order denying his motion to compel discovery. The opinion states that none of the defendants responded within the time allowed by Local Civil Rule 6.1(a).
Pang’s Requests
Pang challenged the earlier ruling as to his “SIXTH request No. 5 and 6.” Request No. 5 sought attendance and leave records for nonparty Shelly Paul. Pang said he needed those records to determine whether Paul had applied for leave through the company’s policy and to support his assertion that he was treated differently under the leave policy.
Request No. 6 sought emails between three employees and their supervisor, Anthony Ye. Pang said the emails would show the employees’ actual work and support his position that their work did not justify more favorable year-end evaluations.
Reconsideration Standard
The court explained that reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change its conclusion. The standard is strict, and the decision rests within the trial court’s discretion.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Pang did not identify any controlling decision or information that it had overlooked. On that basis, it denied the motion for reconsideration.
The court also denied the motion on the merits. It had previously denied the request for Paul’s leave records because Paul’s privacy interests outweighed Pang’s need for the information. The court further noted that Pang had questioned Anthony Ye about Paul’s absences.
As to the employee work emails, the court had previously found that the burden of producing them outweighed their likely benefit. The defendants represented that they had already produced the employees’ year-end reviews, compensation information, 10,000 responsive emails—including emails from Ye’s account and others—and an additional 40 pages of work-related emails submitted by employees other than Pang. The court concluded that searching for additional emails would be burdensome and cumulative and could lead to collateral disputes about whether the employees’ evaluations were fair.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn denied the motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not state that the motion was granted in part, and it does not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.