Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC v. Unknown
- Barbara Moses
- 1:20-cv-02657
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Tappan Zee Constructors v. Unknown: Judge Moses ordered a response about a former employee’s contact information and left the interview dispute unresolved.
The order affected the claimants seeking Gary Worden’s contact information and an interview, Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC, and the separate question of whether Worden was represented or could be interviewed without TZC’s counsel present.
What happened
In Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC v. Unknown, claimants sought Gary Worden’s address, telephone number, and last known employer so their lawyers could interview him about equipment failures connected to John McLoughlin’s injuries. Tappan Zee Constructors objected to providing the information and said any interview should occur through its lawyer and in that lawyer’s presence.
The court reminded Tappan Zee Constructors that contact information for a potential witness is generally discoverable and may have to be disclosed automatically under the federal rules. The court also distinguished sharing contact information from the separate question of whether claimants’ lawyers could interview Worden without Tappan Zee’s lawyer present.
Judge Barbara C. Moses ordered Tappan Zee Constructors to respond by May 27, 2022. She did not decide in this order whether claimants’ lawyers could conduct an interview without Tappan Zee’s lawyer present, noting that the answer could depend on Worden’s employment status or whether Tappan Zee’s lawyer jointly represented him.
The detailed version
- Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC v. Unknown · No. 1:20-cv-02657
- Barbara Moses
- May 25, 2022
Background
Claimants asked Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC (TZC) for the address, telephone number, and last known employer of Gary Worden. The claimants’ counsel described Worden as a former TZC employee who had worked as a lower-level field engineer. They sought to interview him about conditions at the job site, his activities, equipment failures, and the failures of spud wires on demolition barges. The request was made in connection with claims involving injuries to claimant John McLoughlin.
TZC’s counsel refused to provide the information unless any interview was arranged by and conducted in the presence of TZC’s counsel. The claimants’ counsel argued that witness-identification information was discoverable and that ethical rules did not bar an interview of a lower-level employee who merely witnessed events. The letter also cited New York decisions concerning contacts with current and former corporate employees.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that contact information for a potential witness is presumptively discoverable under Local Civil Rule 33.3(a). It also noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i) may require automatic disclosure of a witness’s address and telephone number when a party may use that information to support its claims or defenses.
The court treated disclosure of contact information as a separate issue from whether claimants’ counsel could interview Worden without TZC’s counsel present. It noted that the interview question could depend on whether Worden was a current TZC employee, a former employee, or jointly represented by TZC’s counsel. The court did not resolve that interview question in this order.
Disposition
The court ordered TZC to respond no later than May 27, 2022. The order did not state that TZC had to provide the requested information immediately, and it did not decide whether claimants’ counsel was entitled to conduct an interview outside the presence of TZC’s counsel.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.