Tropic Technologies, Inc. v. Vendr, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-06043
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tropic Technologies v. Vendr, Judge Liman denied Stephen Anderson’s discovery motion, including two requests denied without prejudice to renewal after March 16, 2023.
The ruling directly affected Tropic Technologies, Inc. and Stephen Anderson in their discovery dispute; Vendr, Inc. was also named as a defendant.
What happened
In Tropic Technologies, Inc. v. Vendr, Inc., Stephen Anderson asked the court to require Tropic Technologies, Inc. to produce documents or set a production deadline. Tropic said it would produce documents responsive to three requests before March 14, 2023.
The court found no need for an order concerning those three requests. It also found that documents about Anderson’s job duties and changes to those duties could be relevant to Tropic’s potential request to prevent him from working for Vendr, but allowed time for the parties to consider a stipulation about those duties. The court separately ruled that Anderson’s interrogatory seeking every statement related to Tropic’s claims was not permitted under Local Rule 33.3.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion as to Requests Nos. 1, 7, and 8 and Interrogatory No. 20. He denied the motion as to Requests Nos. 3 and 4 without prejudice to renewal no earlier than March 16, 2023, meaning Anderson could seek those documents again after that date.
The detailed version
- Tropic Technologies, Inc. v. Vendr, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06043
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
Defendant Stephen Anderson moved to compel discovery from Plaintiff Tropic Technologies, Inc., or alternatively to require the court to set a specific production deadline. The motion concerned Anderson’s first document request and Interrogatory No. 20.
Tropic represented that it would produce documents responsive to Requests Nos. 1, 7, and 8 before March 14, 2023. The court found that date reasonable and concluded that no court order was required for those requests.
Requests Nos. 3 and 4
Requests Nos. 3 and 4 sought documents or electronically stored information concerning Anderson’s job duties and responsibilities since October 5, 2020, including changes in those duties and responsibilities. Tropic objected that the requests were irrelevant and overbroad.
The court rejected the relevance objection. It explained that the requested information was relevant to the extent Tropic continued to seek an order preventing Anderson from accepting employment with Vendr through July 7, 2023, based on an employment-agreement provision concerning work for a competing business. Tropic represented that it was willing to stipulate to Anderson’s job duties, responsibilities, and titles between October 5, 2020, and the date of his termination by Tropic. The court stated that such a stipulation could make the requests overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.
To give the parties time to consider a stipulation and its effect on the requests, the court denied the motion to compel responses to Requests Nos. 3 and 4 without prejudice to renewal no earlier than March 16, 2023.
Interrogatory No. 20
Interrogatory No. 20 asked Tropic to identify every oral, written, or recorded statement it had obtained concerning its claims against Anderson, provide identifying and contact information for the person who gave each statement, state when each statement was obtained, and attach copies of the documents. Tropic responded that its document production would include communications concerning the allegations in the complaint and referred Anderson to those communications.
The court ruled that Anderson was not entitled to relief concerning Interrogatory No. 20 because the interrogatory was not permitted under Local Rule 33.3.
Disposition
The court denied Anderson’s motion to compel as to Requests Nos. 1, 7, and 8 and Interrogatory No. 20. It denied the motion as to Requests Nos. 3 and 4 without prejudice to renewal not earlier than March 16, 2023. The clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry, Dkt. No. 40.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.