Bierce v. Schepperly
- Andrew Krause
- 7:20-cv-00320
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bierce v. Schepperly, Judge Krause denied defendants’ motion to bar damages and ordered Bierce to provide employment and union-record authorizations.
Scott Bierce must provide the ordered employment and/or union-record authorizations; the defendants may pursue the remaining damages discovery, but their request to preclude Bierce’s financial-loss damages was denied.
What happened
In Bierce v. Schepperly, the defendants said Scott Bierce had not provided authorizations needed to obtain his employment and union records, despite an earlier court order. The records concerned his possible financial losses and damages claims.
Bierce said he understood that providing the authorizations was an alternative to providing income-tax records. The court rejected that explanation, finding that the earlier conference and written order clearly required both tax records and employment or union-record authorizations.
Judge Krause denied the defendants’ request to bar Bierce from seeking compensation for financial losses. The court ordered Bierce to provide the authorizations by July 25, 2022, and said that failing to do so again could support that sanction later.
The detailed version
- Bierce v. Schepperly · No. 7:20-cv-00320
- Andrew Krause
- July 20, 2022
Background
Defendants filed a letter motion asking the court to prevent Plaintiff Scott Bierce from seeking compensatory damages at trial for alleged financial losses. They argued that Bierce had violated the court’s April 22, 2022 order by failing to provide authorizations for records from his employer and/or union. The authorizations would allow Defendants to obtain records relevant to assessing the scope of Bierce’s damages claims.
The court had reopened limited damages discovery during an April 21, 2022 status conference. According to the opinion, the parties and court discussed both Bierce’s tax returns and authorizations for his employment and/or union records. Bierce’s counsel agreed to provide the authorizations. The April 22 order then directed Bierce to produce tax returns for 2018 through 2022 and the employment and/or union-record authorizations by April 29, 2022.
Positions and Analysis
Bierce did not dispute that he had not provided the authorizations. He stated that he understood the authorizations to be an alternative to producing income-tax records, because both forms of discovery served the same purpose. The court found that objection untimely. It concluded that the April conference and written order clearly required both categories of documents, and that Bierce had violated the April 22 order.
Defendants requested preclusion, a discovery sanction that would bar Bierce from seeking compensatory damages for alleged financial losses. The court described that remedy as harsh and stated that courts in the circuit generally impose preclusion only in rare situations. Instead, the court gave Defendants another opportunity to obtain the employment and/or union records.
Ruling
The court denied Defendants’ letter motion to preclude. It ordered Bierce to provide the required authorizations by July 25, 2022. The court stated that if Bierce again failed to provide them, an order precluding him from seeking compensatory damages for alleged financial losses might be appropriate and could be reconsidered.
The parties were directed to meet and confer about the time needed to complete the remaining damages discovery and whether Defendants would seek to postpone the September 12, 2022 trial date. They were also directed to submit a joint letter by July 29, 2022, addressing the trial schedule. Judge Andrew E. Krause directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.