Naprstek v. Marriot International, Inc.

Background

The order followed a telephone conference about two matters: Elliott Shriftman’s motion to quash, or invalidate, a subpoena served by pro se Plaintiff Lubos Naprstek, and the status of fact discovery. The subpoena sought Shriftman’s responses to interrogatories and related documents.

Ruling on the Subpoena

The court granted in part and denied in part Shriftman’s motion. It explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 allows interrogatories directed to parties, not nonparties. The court therefore treated Interrogatories 14 and 15 as requests for documents because of Naprstek’s pro se status.

The court ordered Shriftman to promptly search documents in his possession for materials responsive to those two requests. By March 22, 2024, Shriftman had to file a letter of no more than three pages reporting the search results and attach any responsive, nonprivileged documents.

Further Discovery Directions

The defendant had to promptly file the transcript of Veronica Stewart’s deposition. Within two weeks after receiving it, Naprstek had to file proposed requests for permission to serve a second set of document requests on the defendant. The defendant then had one week to respond.

After receiving that response, the court stated that it would rule on Naprstek’s requests to serve the proposed document requests and to depose “Ms. Mui.” The court would also address Naprstek’s request for an extension of the fact-discovery deadline.

The deadlines for Naprstek to seek permission to amend his complaint and for expert discovery remained held in abeyance, meaning they were temporarily suspended. The defendant also had to order a transcript of the conference by March 14, 2024, using the seven-day service option. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Naprstek.