Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-08423
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aftern Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC, Judge Woods denied two requests and set briefing on psychiatric notes.
The order affected Aftern Sanderson and the defendants Leg Apparel LLC, Amiee Lynn Accessories, Inc., Steven H. Spolansky, Melissa Romanino, and Stuart Diamond, by denying two requests and setting deadlines for briefing about psychiatric notes.
What happened
In Aftern Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC, the plaintiff asked the court to strike something and to hold a hearing about whether Glassdoor reviews could be used as evidence. The plaintiff also asked for a hearing about psychiatric notes.
The court denied the motion to strike and denied the request for a hearing about the Glassdoor reviews. It treated the psychiatric-notes request as either an objection to producing those notes or, if a subpoena had been issued, a request to cancel the subpoena.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the defendants to respond by June 22, 2022, and allowed the plaintiff to reply by June 29, 2022. The order did not decide whether the psychiatric notes could ultimately be obtained or used.
The detailed version
- Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08423
- Gregory Woods
- June 13, 2022
Rulings on the Plaintiff’s Requests
The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike. It also denied the plaintiff’s request for a pretrial hearing about whether Glassdoor reviews were admissible as evidence. The order states that these decisions were made for the reasons given on the record during the June 13, 2022 hearing.
Psychiatric Notes
The court treated the plaintiff’s request for a pretrial hearing about psychiatric notes as either an objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2) to the defendants’ request for production of those notes, or a motion under Rule 45(d)(3) to quash, meaning cancel, a subpoena if the defendants had issued one seeking the notes. The court cited the rule that self-represented litigants must receive special consideration.
The defendants were directed to respond to the plaintiff’s submission by June 22, 2022. The plaintiff could file a reply by June 29, 2022. The order did not decide the underlying admissibility or production issue concerning the psychiatric notes.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.