Franco v. 380 Second LLC

Background

The court addressed a discovery dispute about financial information that Milagros Franco requested from Defendant Small Door. The court stated that “Small Door” referred to Small Door Gramercy, LLC in light of a stipulation entered on March 9, 2023.

Franco argued that the financial information was relevant because Small Door’s affirmative defenses raised issues of feasibility, achievability, proportionality of costs, and burden. Small Door argued that the discovery was not appropriate at that stage because Franco had not made certain showings concerning a proposed alteration or accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Analysis

The court explained that Small Door relied on legal standards used for summary judgment or trial, but those standards did not resolve the discovery dispute. Instead, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportionate to the needs of the case.

The court found the requested financial information relevant because several of Small Door’s affirmative defenses inherently raised questions about what might be financially reasonable or feasible in addressing Americans with Disabilities Act compliance issues. The court also rejected Small Door’s argument that the information was irrelevant because Franco had sued the wrong entity, stating that the correct entity had since been named and that objection was moot.

The court further concluded that Small Door had not identified any reason why the requested discovery would impose an undue burden or be disproportionate to the needs of the case.

Disposition

The motion to compel discovery of Small Door’s financial information was GRANTED.