C.Q. v. Estate of David Rockefeller

Background

This document concerns a discovery dispute in C.Q.’s diversity action under New York’s Child Victims Act. The defendants sought employment authorizations or other employment records. C.Q., through counsel, stated that she had not sustained lost earnings and withdrew her lost-wages claim.

Plaintiff’s position

C.Q. argued that the defendants were not entitled to her employment records by authorization or subpoena. She distinguished the authorities cited by the defendants, arguing that those cases involved claims for lost earnings or a specific basis for seeking employment information. She also relied on a prior Southern District of New York decision stating that discovery sought only for possible impeachment—evidence used to challenge a witness’s credibility—must be reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence and generally requires good cause rather than speculation.

C.Q. further argued that a Pennsylvania district court decision did not support the defendants’ request because that court had required an employment authorization only as an alternative to stipulating that the accident had not caused lost earnings. C.Q. said she had made that stipulation here.

Ruling

The court denied the application. Judge Vernon S. Broderick stated that resolving the issue at that stage would be premature and that any disputes concerning the defendants’ request for certain records should be presented to the court for resolution. The opinion text does not state that the court finally decided whether the defendants were entitled to the employment records.