Cunningham v. ViacomCBS
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-05917
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cunningham v. ViacomCBS, Judge Failla denied Paramount Global’s discovery request as moot after the plaintiffs produced additional documents.
Plaintiffs Cunningham and Davis and defendant Paramount Global; the order resolved a discovery dispute without deciding the underlying claims.
What happened
In Cunningham v. ViacomCBS, plaintiffs Cunningham and Davis responded to Paramount Global’s discovery letter by reporting that they had produced 27 additional pages of documents, including records about Davis’s resume, Cunningham’s job applications and employer communications, and BE Commerce’s revenue. They also provided contact information for Cunningham’s treating physician and said they had no text messages concerning the allegations.
The court understood that the discovery issues had been resolved after the additional production. The plaintiffs had argued that any litigation-related communications between them were protected by the common-interest privilege, but the court did not decide that issue because the plaintiffs represented that no such text messages existed.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Paramount Global’s request for an order requiring production of the documents as moot and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket number 38. The court also encouraged the parties to try to resolve any future discovery disputes without court intervention before filing letters.
The detailed version
- Cunningham v. ViacomCBS · No. 1:22-cv-05917
- Katherine Failla
- July 11, 2023
Background
The court received Paramount Global’s July 5, 2023 letter concerning outstanding discovery requests. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that the plaintiffs had served Paramount Global with an additional 27 pages of documents on July 7. The production included Davis’s current resume; documents concerning Cunningham’s applications to employers and communications with employers or recruiters; and documents concerning BE Commerce’s revenue. Plaintiffs also supplied the email address of Cunningham’s treating physician, Andrew Michaels.
Plaintiffs further represented that text messages between the plaintiffs from before they retained counsel did not exist, and that they had no text messages with other people concerning the allegations in the complaint. Plaintiffs said that any communications between them after retaining counsel would be protected by the common-interest privilege, which can protect communications shared by parties with a common legal interest when those communications further that interest.
Ruling
The court understood from plaintiffs’ submission that all discovery issues raised by Paramount Global’s July 5 filing had been resolved. It therefore denied as moot Paramount Global’s request for an order requiring plaintiffs to produce certain outstanding documents. The court did not decide whether the common-interest privilege applied because plaintiffs had represented that no text messages between them existed either before or after they retained counsel.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at docket number 38. It also encouraged the parties to try to resolve any additional disputes without court intervention before filing letters on the docket. The order addressed the discovery dispute and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.