Johnson v. Nextel Communications Inc.
- Willis
- 1:07-cv-08473
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. Nextel Communications, Judge Willis granted Nextel’s request to compel three plaintiffs to produce electronic communications and litigation-hold notices and provide more deposition testimony.
The ruling directly affects plaintiffs Donna Dymkowski, Patricia Long, and Angelette Waters and defendant Nextel Communications, Inc. by requiring the requested discovery process to proceed.
What happened
Johnson et al. v. Nextel Communications, Inc. et al. concerns claims by three remaining plaintiffs against Nextel arising from an earlier process for resolving employment-related claims. The plaintiffs allegedly challenged the settlement process and sought damages based on a theory that Nextel should give up certain benefits it received.
Nextel asked the court to require Donna Dymkowski, Patricia Long, and Angelette Waters to search for and produce relevant emails and text messages, provide litigation-hold notices, and sit for additional depositions. Nextel said the plaintiffs had testified that they exchanged relevant communications but had not necessarily preserved or searched for them.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis granted the request to compel discovery. The ruling required the requested discovery concerning the plaintiffs’ communications and preservation efforts, including additional deposition testimony.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Nextel Communications Inc. · No. 1:07-cv-08473
- Willis
- Aug. 15, 2023
Background
The opinion text describes a dispute involving approximately 587 current and former Nextel employees who retained Leeds, Morelli & Brown to pursue employment-related claims. The claimants, including the three plaintiffs remaining in this case, went through a dispute-resolution process and later signed general releases.
The plaintiffs originally sued Leeds, Morelli & Brown, its attorneys, and Nextel in a putative class action. The text says they alleged tortious interference and conspiracy relating to the settlement process, including an alleged undisclosed agreement under which Nextel would pay Leeds, Morelli & Brown a consulting fee. The plaintiffs later dismissed Leeds, Morelli & Brown from the case and continued pursuing claims against Nextel. They seek $7.5 million in damages under a theory of disgorgement, according to the letter.
Discovery dispute
Nextel served written discovery requests in May 2022. According to Nextel’s submission, the plaintiffs responded with general objections and referred to documents produced during earlier class discovery. Nextel also said that, during depositions beginning in March 2023, each plaintiff testified that she had exchanged emails or text messages with other plaintiffs about the litigation or the underlying employment issues, but had not necessarily retained or searched for those communications.
Nextel asked the court to order the plaintiffs to: (1) collect, search for, and produce responsive electronic communications, including emails and text messages; (2) produce litigation-hold notices issued to them; and (3) provide additional deposition testimony in light of the production. Nextel argued that these materials were relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims and Nextel’s defenses, including issues concerning the alleged employment discrimination, the consulting arrangement, and whether relevant evidence had been preserved.
The letter also argued that the plaintiffs’ preservation efforts were proper subjects of discovery. This type of inquiry is commonly called “discovery on discovery,” meaning discovery into how a party searched for, preserved, and produced evidence. The submission stated that the plaintiffs’ testimony about not retaining, searching, or reviewing relevant electronic communications supplied a factual basis for that inquiry.
Ruling
The order states: “The request to compel discovery is GRANTED.” It also asks the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 292. The text does not provide a separate explanation by Judge Willis or reproduce detailed terms beyond the discovery requests described in Nextel’s submission.
The provided materials identify August 15, 2023 as the filing date, but the order text also displays July 14, 2023. The materials therefore contain an apparent date discrepancy.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.