Worley v. Simon Meyrowitz & Meyrowitz, P.C.

Background

The plaintiff served the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) with a notice for a deposition. The plaintiff said NYCHA was a crucial fact witness and a primary source of information about the components of the debt described in the amended complaint. The defendant sought a protective order barring the deposition, arguing that it was improper and lacked a good-faith basis.

The plaintiff opposed the request. The plaintiff argued that the deposition topics were plainly relevant to whether the defendant’s representations about the debt were false, misleading, deceptive, or inaccurate. The plaintiff also pointed to the defendant’s delayed document responses and alleged deficiencies in the deposition of David Meyrowitz. In addition, the plaintiff asked the court to reconsider an order prohibiting contact with NYCHA’s attorneys.

Court’s Ruling

The court concluded that no conference was necessary and stated that the defendant’s request for a protective order was meritless. The court found that the matters identified in the deposition notice were plainly relevant. It also held that a party generally lacks standing to challenge a subpoena directed to a nonparty on relevance or burden grounds. The court further stated that any attorney-client privilege belonged to NYCHA, not the defendant, because the privilege belongs to the client.

The request for a protective order was DENIED. The court also VACATED the prohibition on the plaintiff contacting NYCHA because NYCHA was represented by other counsel in connection with the matter. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 65.