Shiber v. Centerview Partners LLC

Background

Kathryn Shiber, a former analyst at Centerview Partners LLC, alleges that Centerview terminated her employment because of her disability. She alleges that she had an accommodation allowing her to sleep eight to nine hours each night and that Centerview terminated her after telling her she could not perform the job’s essential functions with that accommodation. Her claims include claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The opinion also states that the court previously dismissed Shiber’s New York State and New York City human-rights claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

During discovery, Shiber sought to depose Robert A. Pruzan, Centerview’s co-founder, principal, and current chief executive officer. Shiber relied in part on testimony from Human Resources Manager Cheryl Robinson that Pruzan was one of the people involved in the decision to terminate her. Centerview refused to produce Pruzan for a deposition. Pruzan submitted a declaration stating that he did not specifically or generally remember interviewing Shiber, never spoke with her while she worked at Centerview, did not recall overseeing any project assigned to her, was not involved in the decision to provide her accommodation, and did not need to authorize the termination decision. He stated that he had been informed about the decision, which was made by Chief Operating Officer Jeanne Vicari.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 generally permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The rule limits discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or that can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source.

The court applied the “apex doctrine,” which protects senior corporate executives from depositions unless they have unique evidence and personal knowledge of the claims, and other witnesses cannot provide testimony about the alleged conduct. The party seeking discovery must show its relevance, while the party opposing discovery must explain why the discovery should be denied.

The court’s analysis

The court held that the apex doctrine applied to Pruzan. It rejected Shiber’s arguments that the doctrine was inappropriate because Centerview was a partnership, had a collaborative and non-hierarchical culture, or was relatively small. The record identified Pruzan as Centerview’s co-founder and current chief executive officer, and the court noted that Centerview had more than 400 employees in offices in New York, London, Paris, Menlo Park, and San Francisco.

The court also held that Pruzan did not have personal and unique knowledge of the relevant facts. Vicari, who had already been deposed, made the termination decision. Robinson, who had also been deposed, was a main participant in discussions about Shiber’s accommodation and termination. Because Pruzan had not spoken with Shiber, had not overseen her work, and had not participated in the accommodation decision, the court found that any knowledge he had about the termination would be cumulative. The court further found that the information could be obtained from other sources that were more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

Disposition

The court denied Shiber’s motion to compel Pruzan’s deposition under Rule 26(b)(2)(C) and the apex doctrine. Because those grounds resolved the motion, the court did not consider Centerview’s argument that Shiber’s request was untimely. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.