LaPolice v. FAM, LLC
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-07091
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In LaPolice v. FAM, LLC, Judge Ho quashed a subpoena to LaPolice’s current employer and denied the premature deposition motion.
LaPolice, FAM, LLC, and Resource Management Group, which was served with the subpoena. The order limits the subpoena to LaPolice’s current employer and requires the parties to meet and confer before pursuing the requested depositions.
What happened
In LaPolice v. FAM, LLC, LaPolice asked the court to cancel a subpoena sent to her current employer, Resource Management Group, and to require depositions. FAM, LLC argued that the subpoena sought information relevant to whether LaPolice had reduced her claimed losses through new employment.
The court granted LaPolice’s motion to quash because the subpoena was premature and a deposition of LaPolice could provide the needed information without involving her current employer. The court allowed FAM, LLC to later seek permission for third-party discovery if the record showed it was warranted.
The court denied LaPolice’s motion to compel depositions as premature and ordered the parties to discuss the remaining discovery issues in good faith. Judge Dale E. Ho also allowed the parties to request more time for discovery and to file a joint status letter if their discussions did not resolve the dispute.
The detailed version
- LaPolice v. FAM, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-07091
- Ho
- Apr. 2, 2024
Background
LaPolice filed a letter-motion concerning discovery. She asked the court to quash, meaning cancel, a third-party subpoena served on her current employer, Resource Management Group. The subpoena sought documents including materials relating to LaPolice’s hiring there. LaPolice argued that the requests were improper and too broad because the requested information did not relate to whether she had reduced her damages through later employment. FAM, LLC argued that the subpoena was narrowly designed to obtain information about mitigation of damages and whether LaPolice’s current employment was merely a litigation-related arrangement.
Subpoena ruling
The court explained that subpoenas to third parties must satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s requirement that discovery be relevant to a party’s claim or defense. It also noted that courts generally seek less intrusive ways to obtain information about a plaintiff’s later employment because involving a current employer in a dispute with a former employer can negatively affect the plaintiff’s employment.
The court found the subpoena premature. Because LaPolice was available to answer questions about her current employment under oath, a deposition appeared sufficient to address FAM, LLC’s need for relevant information without the risks of subpoenaing her current employer. The court therefore granted LaPolice’s motion to quash. It stated that FAM, LLC could later file a motion seeking permission for third-party discovery if the record showed that such discovery was warranted.
Deposition motion and further proceedings
The court denied LaPolice’s motion to compel depositions as premature. FAM, LLC represented that the parties had not yet met and conferred about the issue and that it wanted to resolve written-discovery disputes before taking depositions. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer in good faith about the outstanding discovery requests and deposition scheduling. The parties could jointly request an extension of discovery deadlines, and if their discussions did not resolve the dispute, they could file a joint status letter identifying the remaining issues by April 8, 2024.
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the Clerk of Court to close the docket entry containing the motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.