Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Vinci Brands v. Coach Services, Judge Schofield denied reconsideration and ordered both sides to produce unredacted text-message conversations.
Case-Mate and Vinci Brands LLC, which were ordered to produce text-message conversations; future discovery disputes were directed to Judge Figueredo.
What happened
In Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc., Case-Mate asked the court to reconsider an earlier discovery order requiring it to produce unredacted text-message strings. Case-Mate said it should be allowed to produce only relevant messages in formats Vinci had used, such as screenshots or spreadsheets.
Case-Mate also asked that Vinci be required to produce its text-message conversations in complete, unredacted form if reconsideration was denied. The request arose from a dispute over redactions, relevance, privacy, and the proportionality of producing a large volume of messages.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application. She ordered Case-Mate to produce its unredacted text-message conversations and Vinci to produce its conversations in the same required form by May 14, 2024, unless the parties mutually agree to change the date; future discovery disputes were directed to Judge Figueredo.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- May 7, 2024
Background
The matter concerns a discovery dispute about text-message production. According to Case-Mate's reconsideration letter, Case-Mate had produced text-message strings containing responsive messages along with messages it characterized as sensitive, personal, private, irrelevant, or nonresponsive. Case-Mate had redacted some of those messages. Vinci had produced selected messages using screenshots and Excel spreadsheets rather than the original text-message strings.
The court's April 30, 2024 order had required Case-Mate to review its production and remove redactions other than those based on attorney-client privilege or protection for attorney work product. Case-Mate sought limited reconsideration of that order. It asked to reproduce only relevant and responsive messages in an alternative format similar to Vinci's production and requested additional time to do so. Alternatively, Case-Mate asked the court to require Vinci to produce its text-message conversations in complete, unredacted form.
Reconsideration standard
The order states that reconsideration relief is available only when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The opinion text does not explain which part of that standard the court applied or provide a separate explanation for denying Case-Mate's application.
Ruling
The court denied the application. By May 14, 2024, Case-Mate was ordered to produce its unredacted text-message conversations as directed by the April 30 order. Vinci was ordered to produce its text-message conversations in the same form required of Case-Mate. The parties were permitted to change the production date by mutual agreement. The court directed all future discovery disputes to Judge Figueredo.
Effect
The ruling resolved the reconsideration request and imposed production requirements on both Case-Mate and Vinci. The text does not state that the court decided the parties' underlying claims.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.