Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-00775
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Philip Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC, Judge Willis denied three procedural motions: to disqualify counsel, expedite discovery, and hold a Rule 37.2 conference.
Philip Columbo, Robert Wiesen, Wiesen’s law firm, and the defendants were affected. The court denied Columbo’s requests to disqualify counsel, expedite discovery, and hold a Rule 37.2 conference, while scheduling an initial case-management conference.
What happened
In Philip Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC, Philip Columbo asked the court to disqualify defense lawyer Robert Wiesen and his firm, allow discovery to begin sooner, and hold a conference about a discovery dispute. His request to amend the complaint was left for District Judge Ronnie Abrams to decide separately.
The court found that the request to disqualify counsel was premature because it was unclear whether Wiesen would be needed as a witness, and privilege issues might arise concerning a March 19, 2020 call. The court also found that it was unclear whether anyone from Wiesen’s firm would be called as a witness. Although the court said expedited discovery was not unreasonable because the required discovery conference had apparently not occurred, it denied that request and instead scheduled a case-management conference.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis denied the cross-motion to disqualify counsel, denied the cross-motion to expedite discovery, and denied as moot Columbo’s letter-motion for a Rule 37.2 conference. The court scheduled a telephonic initial case-management conference for December 20, 2022.
The detailed version
- Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00775
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 22, 2022
Background
Philip Columbo filed three requests in his opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss: a request for permission to file an amended complaint, a request to disqualify Robert Wiesen and his law firm, and a request to expedite discovery. The court stated that District Judge Ronnie Abrams would address the request to amend the complaint. Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis resolved the requests concerning counsel and discovery. The defendants’ motion to dismiss remained pending before Judge Abrams.
Request to Disqualify Counsel
Columbo argued that Robert Wiesen had previously represented the hotel and Columbo and had knowledge about the hotel’s employment decisions, its treatment of employees and others, and a March 19, 2020 telephone call concerning the hotel’s operations. Columbo asked that Wiesen and his firm, identified in the opinion as Clifton Budd & DeMaria LLP and later as Clifton Buff & DeMaria LLP, be disqualified.
The court applied New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a), which generally bars a lawyer from acting as an advocate in a matter where the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness on a significant factual issue. The court said disqualification motions receive strict scrutiny because they interfere with a party’s choice of lawyer. It concluded that Columbo had not met the demanding standard at this stage. The only specific event identified as potentially requiring Wiesen’s testimony was the March 19, 2020 call. If Wiesen acted as counsel during that call, privilege questions would have to be resolved first. The court also noted that discovery might produce other evidence, eliminating any need for Wiesen’s testimony. The cross-motion to disqualify Wiesen was DENIED.
The court also denied the request to disqualify Wiesen’s firm based on imputed disqualification—the rule that may attribute one lawyer’s conflict to other lawyers in the same firm. The court said it was still unclear whether Wiesen or any other lawyer from the firm would be called as a witness. The request to disqualify the firm was therefore also DENIED.
Request to Expedite Discovery
Columbo based his request to expedite discovery solely on the fact that three expected witnesses were advanced in age. The court explained that discovery generally begins after the parties hold a conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The court found that the parties’ earlier conference apparently had not followed that required process and that no case plan had been established.
The court said expedited discovery was not an unreasonable request under those circumstances. It concluded, however, that the more productive solution was to reschedule the initial case-management conference and require the parties to hold the Rule 26(f) conference at least 21 days beforehand. The Cross-Motion to Expedite Discovery was DENIED. The court stated that the pending motion to dismiss did not prevent discovery from moving forward in the meantime.
Other Motion and Disposition
The court stated that Columbo’s letter-motion for a Rule 37.2 conference was moot and DENIED it. The court scheduled an initial case-management conference for December 20, 2022, at 10:30 a.m., by telephone. Judge Jennifer E. Willis signed the order.
Classification
This is a procedural order. It resolved requests about attorney disqualification, discovery timing, and a discovery-related conference, without deciding the parties’ underlying claims or the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.