Russell Reynolds Associates, Inc. v. Usina

Background

The court had directed the parties to submit a joint letter proposing a schedule for Russell Reynolds Associates, Inc.’s application for a preliminary injunction. The parties filed a letter that described their disagreements and then submitted additional individual letters. The court directed them not to send further correspondence.

The disagreements focused largely on expedited discovery before the preliminary-injunction hearing. The court explained that expedited discovery may be appropriate when it would help the court evaluate the parties’ positions before that hearing, but it must be reasonable, supported by good cause, and limited to the issues and time constraints involved. A request for a preliminary injunction does not automatically provide a right to broad merits discovery.

Court’s analysis

The court found Defendant’s proposed schedule unreasonable because it would require all requested discovery and pre-hearing submissions to be completed before May 18, 2023. The court also stated that, because Defendant would not agree to extend the temporary restraints, the hearing had to occur by May 19, 2023. The court noted that substantial evidence and briefing had already been developed, including affidavits from the individuals the parties sought to depose, except for Mr. Alexandrakis.

Orders and deadlines

The court ordered the following:

Depositions

• Depositions of Defendant and Russell Reynolds employees Kimberly Archer and Renee Bell had to be completed by May 10, 2023.

• Plaintiff’s request to depose non-parties Meredith Rosenberg, Mar Hernandez, and Libby Naumes was denied. The court said it was not reasonable to expect that these witnesses could be compelled to appear before the temporary restraints expired. Plaintiff could instead subpoena them to appear and testify at the preliminary-injunction hearing.

Documents and interrogatories

• By noon on May 8, 2023, the parties and non-parties had to respond and produce documents, absent objection, to outstanding written discovery requests.

• By the close of business on May 8, any party or non-party seeking to compel or quash discovery, after a good-faith discussion, had to file an appropriate letter-motion. Responses were due May 10, 2023.

Pre-hearing submissions

By May 12, 2023, the parties had to file a joint pre-hearing order and their separate proposed findings of fact. They could not submit additional legal memoranda without permission from the court, and the deadline to seek permission was May 12. By that date, they also had to serve, but not file, witness affidavits, deposition excerpts intended as substantive evidence, and related synopses, documentary exhibits, and demonstratives.

By May 15, counsel had to submit a list of affiants whom they intended to cross-examine. Only witnesses who would be cross-examined needed to appear at the hearing.

Hearing

The preliminary-injunction hearing was scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on May 18, 2023, in Courtroom 12B of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse in New York, New York, and to conclude at 5:00 p.m.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden set the expedited discovery and pre-hearing schedule, adopted neither party’s proposed schedule, denied Plaintiff’s request to depose the three non-parties before the hearing, and set the preliminary-injunction hearing for May 18, 2023. The opinion did not decide whether to grant or deny the preliminary injunction itself.