Meisner v. 607 10th Ave Properties LLC
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-00506
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Meisner v. 607 10th Ave Properties LLC, Judge Ho overruled defendants’ remaining objection to a property-tax exhibit before trial.
Plaintiff Amy Meisner and the defendants, particularly their dispute over Plaintiff’s proposed Exhibit 14.
What happened
In Meisner v. 607 10th Avenue Properties LLC, the parties were preparing for a jury trial. Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s proposed Exhibit 14, a publicly available document showing the assessed property-tax value of the building involved in the case. They initially objected under evidence rules concerning relevance and unfair prejudice, and later also argued that the exhibit had not been properly disclosed during discovery.
The court had already overruled the objection based on unfair prejudice. It then overruled defendants’ remaining objection based on alleged non-disclosure. The court said defendants waived that argument by not including it in the joint pretrial order. The court also said that, even if the argument had not been waived, the exhibit was adequately disclosed and was publicly available to both sides.
Judge Dale E. Ho issued the May 8, 2024 order. The order overruled defendants’ remaining objection to Exhibit 14.
The detailed version
- Meisner v. 607 10th Ave Properties LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00506
- Ho
- May 8, 2024
Background
A jury trial was scheduled to begin on May 20, 2024. The parties filed pretrial materials, including a joint pretrial order. Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s proposed Exhibit 14, a publicly available document showing the assessed value of the building at issue for property-tax purposes.
In the joint pretrial order, defendants objected under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403. At the final pretrial conference, defendants also objected that the exhibit had not been adequately disclosed during discovery. The court had already overruled the Rule 403 objection and reserved decision on the non-disclosure objection.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that defendants waived their non-disclosure objection because they did not include that argument in the joint pretrial order.
The court also ruled in the alternative that the exhibit had been adequately disclosed. The record indicated that defendants had not made requests for production of documents, and Plaintiff’s counsel represented that Plaintiff had identified publicly available documents in her disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The court explained that Rule 26 permits a description by category of documents a party may use to support its claims; it does not require production of the documents in every circumstance.
The court further stated that Plaintiff was not required to produce defendants’ own Notice of Property Value because the document was publicly available and defendants had equal or better access to it.
Disposition
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered that defendants’ remaining objection to Exhibit 14 was overruled.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.