Trombetta v. Novocin
- Laura Swain
- 1:18-cv-00993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Trombetta v. Novocin, Judge Cave set discovery deadlines and barred obstruction of depositions.
Pro se Plaintiff Annamarie Trombetta, WorthPoint Corporation, the EAI Defendants, and witnesses Ms. Trombetta identified as potential trial witnesses.
What happened
In Trombetta v. Novocin, pro se Plaintiff Annamarie Trombetta and Defendant WorthPoint Corporation sent letters about discovery matters. The order addressed those letters during the case.
The court ordered Ms. Trombetta to provide three available deposition dates, required Defendants to select a date and provide logistical information, and required the EAI Defendants to respond to concerns about their discovery responses. Defendants could also contact witnesses Ms. Trombetta might call at trial and seek their depositions voluntarily or by subpoena.
Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered that Ms. Trombetta could not obstruct Defendants’ efforts to depose those witnesses. The Clerk was directed to close one docket entry and mail the order to Ms. Trombetta. The order addressed discovery and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Trombetta v. Novocin · No. 1:18-cv-00993
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 12, 2022
Background
The court received letters dated August 8 and August 11, 2022, from pro se Plaintiff Annamarie Trombetta and a letter dated August 10, 2022, from Defendant WorthPoint Corporation. The order addressed discovery issues raised in those letters.
Court’s directives
The court ordered Ms. Trombetta to provide Defendants with three dates when she was available for a deposition by August 17, 2022. Defendants were required by August 19, 2022, to identify the date they selected, the location, and other logistical information.
The court also ordered the EAI Defendants, to the extent they had not already done so, to respond by August 19, 2022, to Ms. Trombetta’s concerns about the sufficiency of their discovery responses.
The order stated that, if Ms. Trombetta had identified witnesses she might call at trial, Defendants were entitled to contact those witnesses—or their lawyers if they were represented—and ask them to sit for depositions voluntarily or by subpoena. The court stated that Ms. Trombetta could not obstruct that process and cited decisions discussing sanctions for interference with discovery from nonparty witnesses.
Disposition
Judge Sarah L. Cave directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 258 and mail a copy of the order to Ms. Trombetta. This was a discovery-related procedural order; it did not resolve the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.