Buon v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:21-cv-05623
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Buon v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Judge McCarthy ordered SAANYS to join a telephone conference about defendants’ proposed subpoena-enforcement motion.
The nonparty School Administrators Association of New York State (SAANYS) and the defendants were directly affected by the conference directive; the plaintiff’s accommodation-related documents were the subject of the subpoena.
What happened
Buon v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District concerns defendants’ request to obtain documents from the nonparty School Administrators Association of New York State, or SAANYS. Defendants said SAANYS had objected to the subpoena based on privilege, work-product protection, overbreadth, and burden.
Defendants argued that the objections were unsupported because the plaintiff had produced some communications with SAANYS counsel, SAANYS had not provided a privilege log, and the subpoena was limited to relevant documents concerning the plaintiff’s accommodation requests. Defendants asked the court either to schedule a conference or to permit a motion to compel.
Judge Judith C. McCarthy ordered SAANYS to participate in the scheduled telephone conference and ordered defendants to provide SAANYS with a copy of the endorsement. The order did not decide whether SAANYS must produce the documents or resolve the privilege and burden objections.
The detailed version
- Buon v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District · No. 7:21-cv-05623
- Judith McCarthy
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
Defendants asked for permission to move to compel the nonparty School Administrators Association of New York State (SAANYS) to respond to a subpoena for documents. The subpoena sought documents relating to the plaintiff’s accommodation requests, including documents concerning grievances or other complaints.
SAANYS initially stated that any responsive documents were protected by attorney-client privilege and that it had none of the requested documents. After discussions with defendants, SAANYS sought additional time to respond. SAANYS later objected that the requested materials were protected by attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product protection and that the subpoena was overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Defendants’ arguments
Defendants argued that the plaintiff had waived attorney-client privilege for communications with SAANYS counsel by intentionally producing similar emails during discovery. They also argued that SAANYS had not adequately supported its work-product objection because it had not shown that it reviewed its records, and that no privilege log had been provided. Defendants further argued that the subpoena was narrowly limited to a relevant time period and scope. They stated that they would accept a reasonable limitation of the search to documents from 2015 to the present.
These arguments appeared in defendants’ request for a conference or permission to file a motion to compel. The order did not itself decide whether privilege had been waived, whether any documents were protected, or whether SAANYS had to produce documents.
Court’s action
The court directed SAANYS to participate in the telephone conference scheduled for October 20, 2022, so that the issues raised in defendants’ letter could be addressed. The court also directed defendants to provide SAANYS with a copy of the endorsement. The text provided does not show a ruling granting or denying a motion to compel.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.