Phillips v. The National Basketball Association
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-09666
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Phillips v. NBA, Judge Broderick denied plaintiffs’ discovery application without prejudice as premature.
The plaintiffs seeking answers to the second set of interrogatories and the defendants who had objected to providing them.
What happened
In Phillips v. The National Basketball Association, the plaintiffs asked the court to require defendants to answer a second set of written questions during discovery. The questions sought information about matters including who terminated Phillips and who handled religious-exemption requests involving other plaintiffs.
Defendants had refused to answer, arguing that the case-management order allowed additional discovery only about allegations newly added to the amended complaint. The plaintiffs disagreed and argued that the questions were relevant and permitted by the federal discovery rules and the local rule governing interrogatories.
Judge Vernon Broderick denied the plaintiffs’ application without prejudice as premature. The court directed defendants to provide their objections and responses and the parties to discuss any remaining disagreements before the plaintiffs could renew the application. The court also stated that it would not sustain objections based solely on the number of interrogatories or because they did not concern changes in the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Phillips v. The National Basketball Association · No. 1:22-cv-09666
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 25, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs submitted an application asking the court to order defendants to respond fully to a second set of interrogatories, which are written questions used in civil discovery. The application described a dispute over defendants’ refusal to provide responses during discovery.
The questions included who terminated Plaintiff Phillips, who considered possible accommodations for Plaintiff Mauer’s request for a religious exemption, and who wrote a memorandum recommending denial of Plaintiff Ayotte’s religious-exemption request. The plaintiffs argued that the requested information was relevant and imposed little burden.
Parties’ Positions
The defendants took the position that the plaintiffs could not serve additional discovery concerning matters other than allegations newly added in the Third Amended Complaint. They relied on provisions of the amended case-management plan and scheduling order.
The plaintiffs argued that those provisions required timely discovery about the new allegations but did not eliminate other discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 33.3. They also argued that the defendants’ interpretation would prevent follow-up interrogatories and effectively end the discovery process for other issues.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ application without prejudice as premature. The court directed defendants to provide their objections and responses, and directed the parties to meet and confer about any remaining disputes. After that process, the plaintiffs may renew the application concerning unresolved issues.
As guidance, the court stated that, in light of objections previously sustained regarding the plaintiffs’ broader first set of interrogatories, it would not sustain objections to the second set based on the number of interrogatories or on the ground that the questions did not concern changes in the amended complaint. The opinion does not decide whether defendants ultimately must provide particular answers.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.