Martin v. Donaldson and Chilliest, LLP
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-08975
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Martin v. Donaldson and Chilliest, LLP, Judge Woods denied Martin’s discovery request without prejudice because it was not jointly filed.
Martin and the defendants, including Donaldson and Chilliest, LLP and Anthony Chilliest, were affected by the court’s ruling on the discovery request.
What happened
In Martin v. Donaldson and Chilliest, LLP, Martin asked the court to hold a conference or require the defendants to provide additional discovery. The request concerned employee records and identities, financial information related to a punitive-damages claim, and information that could identify Defendant Cap.
The defendants had produced some records but refused to provide all of the requested information. The filing said the parties had discussed the disputes several times but had not resolved them. The request was filed by Martin’s lawyer rather than jointly by the parties.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied the application without prejudice, meaning the request was not permanently barred. He said it did not comply with Rule 2 of his Individual Rules of Practice, which required the request to be made jointly, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket 36.
The detailed version
- Martin v. Donaldson and Chilliest, LLP · No. 1:22-cv-08975
- Gregory Woods
- May 25, 2023
Background
Martin’s counsel filed a letter asking for a pre-motion conference about alleged outstanding discovery. Alternatively, the letter asked the court to order Donaldson and Chilliest, LLP, Anthony Chilliest, and other defendants to produce the requested materials without objections. The letter stated that the parties had exchanged deficiency letters, served updated discovery responses, and met and conferred by telephone about the disputes.
Requested Discovery
The letter described four categories of disputed information: records concerning the firm’s employees and people it considered independent contractors; financial information such as statements, assets, liabilities, and tax returns related to Martin’s punitive-damages claim; the identities of the firm’s employees; and the identity of Defendant Cap or a restaurant owner or client of the firm who allegedly knew Cap’s identity. The letter stated that the defendants had refused to provide additional discovery without court intervention.
Ruling
The court denied the application without prejudice. It found that Martin’s request did not comply with Rule 2 of the court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases because the request had to be made jointly. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Docket 36. Judge Woods did not decide whether the requested discovery was relevant, required, or properly withheld.
Effect of the Order
The order resolved the filing procedure for this discovery request, not the parties’ underlying employment claims or the merits of the discovery disputes. The phrase “without prejudice” means the ruling did not permanently prevent a properly filed request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.