Naprstek v. Marriot International, Inc.

Background

Lubos Naprstek, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Marriott over alleged age and national-origin discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. His allegations included Marriott’s 80% work-and-attendance policy and changes to banquet service fees and gratuities. The opinion states that Naprstek had previously served 40 interrogatories and that Marriott had responded and produced documents.

Naprstek asked for permission to serve 43 supplemental requests for documents and to depose Winnie Mui, Marriott’s Director of Finance and Accounting. Marriott opposed both requests. The requests sought information about, among other things, other employees, unrelated allegations, a prior lawsuit, and communications concerning a prior arbitration award and Marriott’s 80% policy.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery must concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Rule 26(b)(2)(C) requires courts to limit discovery that is duplicative, obtainable from a more convenient source, sought after the requesting party had an adequate opportunity to obtain it, or outside the permitted scope.

Document requests

The court found that most of the proposed requests were either irrelevant, speculative, or duplicative. Several requests concerned other Marriott employees and events that did not involve Naprstek. The court also found that 19 requests were in the form of interrogatories and duplicated Naprstek’s earlier interrogatories, to which Marriott had already responded.

The court found one request—Proposed Request 23—potentially relevant and not previously pursued. The court interpreted it as seeking documents and communications concerning Marriott’s decisions to implement the 80% policy and to “red circle” Judith Hoover and Gary Knifer, meaning to keep them on the A-List rather than terminate them under that policy. The court modified the request and ordered Marriott to conduct a reasonable search and produce any responsive, nonprivileged documents and communications.

Deposition request

The court denied Naprstek’s request to depose Winnie Mui. Mui had calculated the retroactive service-charge amount that the arbitration decision required Marriott to pay to tipped banquet staff. After reviewing testimony from another Marriott employee, the court concluded that Naprstek had not shown a basis to believe Mui would provide further testimony relevant to his discrimination or retaliation claims. The court therefore found the proposed deposition outside the scope of permitted discovery.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Naprstek’s request for leave to serve the proposed document requests. It denied the request to depose Mui. Marriott was ordered to search for documents and communications concerning the 80% policy and the decisions involving Hoover and Knifer, and to produce nonprivileged responsive materials by May 9, 2024. The court also extended the fact-discovery deadline to May 9, 2024 and scheduled a telephone conference for May 13, 2024.