Lee v. Golaszewski
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-10695
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Lee v. Golaszewski, Judge Halpern ordered nonparties to respond to defendants’ discovery motion by January 29, 2024.
Oak Hill Advisors, LP and William Bohnsack, Jr., who were directed to respond through counsel; defendants Richard Golaszewski and Stephen Swentzel, who were directed to serve the order and file proof of service.
What happened
Lee v. Golaszewski involves Daniel Lee’s claims against Richard Golaszewski and Stephen Swentzel concerning an alleged partnership, joint venture, and fiduciary duty. Defendants said they subpoenaed Lee’s employer, Oak Hill Advisors, LP, and its president, William Bohnsack, Jr., for depositions, but neither appeared.
The court ordered Oak Hill Advisors and Bohnsack to file a response to defendants’ letter-motion by January 29, 2024. The order also required defendants to promptly serve the order on their counsel and file proof of service.
Judge Halpern did not decide in this order whether the depositions must occur, whether the nonparties should be held in contempt, or whether defendants should receive costs and attorney’s fees. The order only set a deadline for the response.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Golaszewski · No. 7:23-cv-10695
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 22, 2024
Background
The opinion text includes defendants’ January 21, 2024 letter requesting a conference before an anticipated motion concerning discovery subpoenas. Defendants said they had served deposition subpoenas on Oak Hill Advisors, LP ("OHA"), Lee’s employer, and William Bohnsack, Jr., OHA’s president. According to defendants, OHA and Bohnsack did not appear for depositions noticed for January 18 and 19, 2024, did not serve written objections, and did not provide alternative deposition dates.
Defendants asked the court to require OHA and Bohnsack to appear for depositions before the February 26, 2024 fact-discovery deadline. They also asked for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees based on what they described as discovery misconduct, and requested that OHA and Bohnsack be ordered to show why they should not be held in contempt under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g).
Court’s Action
The court directed OHA and Bohnsack, identified as the nonparties, to file a response to defendants’ letter-motion on or before January 29, 2024. The court further directed defendants to promptly serve a copy of the order on counsel for the nonparties and file proof of that service.
What the Order Decided
This order did not rule on defendants’ requested relief. It did not grant or deny the request to compel depositions, the request for contempt, or the request for costs and attorney’s fees. It established a response procedure and deadline. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.