Forbes v. Tri-County Care, LLC.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-01366
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 24
In Forbes v. Tri-County Care, LLC., Judge Abrams referred Forbes’s discovery dispute to Magistrate Judge Parker.
Tina Forbes, Tri-County Care, LLC, and Japhe Deliat; the referral concerns their discovery dispute, while the underlying claims were not decided in the provided text.
What happened
In Forbes v. Tri-County Care, LLC., Tina Forbes asked the court to require Tri-County Care, LLC, and Japhe Deliat to provide documents and updated answers to discovery requests. The requests concerned topics including training, workplace accommodations, travel records, calendars, Facebook comments, an earlier deposition transcript, employee records, and phone records.
Forbes said the requests were prompted by deposition testimony and claimed the defendants had withheld relevant information or given incomplete responses. The defendants objected that many requests were vague, too broad, burdensome, irrelevant, or sought confidential information, and said they had already produced responsive documents or had no additional documents.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not decide whether the requested discovery had to be produced or whether Forbes should receive fees. Instead, the court referred this dispute and other discovery disputes to Magistrate Judge Parker and directed Forbes to raise the issue before that judge.
The detailed version
- Forbes v. Tri-County Care, LLC. · No. 1:21-cv-01366
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 5, 2022
Background
Tina Forbes, through her lawyer, asked the court for permission to file a motion to compel discovery or for an order requiring Tri-County Care, LLC, and Japhe Deliat to provide discovery. A motion to compel is a request for a court order requiring a party to respond to discovery requests. Forbes also requested reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, related to the requested relief.
The discovery requests arose from depositions of Japhe Deliat, Jason Mazzuca, Blimi Kornbluh, and Sara Bucknal. Forbes sought, among other things, Deliat’s travel-expense submissions and work calendar; comments to a Facebook post; a 2012 deposition transcript; information about employees who received workplace accommodations; Gabrielle Dissent’s resume and job application; answers about Dissent’s date of birth and pregnancy; and phone, text-message, WhatsApp, and call-log records involving Mazzuca and Deliat on February 19, 2020. Forbes also requested amended responses to earlier discovery requests.
The parties’ positions
Forbes argued that the requested materials were relevant and that the defendants’ responses were incomplete or evasive. The defendants objected to the requests on grounds including vagueness, overbreadth, burden, lack of relevance, confidentiality, privilege, and lack of connection to the issues in the case. The defendants stated that they had already produced responsive documents through earlier disclosures and supplemental productions, and that they had no other responsive documents for the identified requests.
Court’s action
Judge Ronnie Abrams referred the discovery dispute, and all other discovery disputes in the case, to Magistrate Judge Parker for resolution. The court directed Forbes to raise this issue before Judge Parker. The text provided does not show a ruling ordering production, requiring amended responses, awarding fees, or deciding the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 24-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.