Plaintiff has filed and served their Complaint, and the Defendant has either filed their Answer, or made a motion to dismiss which the Court has denied. At this point, we enter the most involved, costly, and time-consuming stage of litigation: Discovery (“Disclosure” in New York practice). (If this were a cross-country road trip from New…
Read More Anatomy of a Lawsuit, Part 4: Discovery / DisclosureIn Berry v. Town of Front Royal, Virginia, 21-cv-00001, 2021 WL 4895204 (W.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2021) – a sexual harassment and retaliation case involving allegations of unwanted touching and inappropriate remarks – the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. At issue were two document requests: 27. All documents submitted by Defendant to, or…
Read More Court Grants Motion to Compel Discovery Regarding Other Instances of Sexual HarassmentThe so-called “Jackson Affidavit” – named after a First Department case, Jackson v. City of New York, 185 A.D.2d 768, 586 N.Y.S.2d 952 (1st Dept. 1992) – is frequently used in New York state court litigation to, in sum, confirm that documents requested as part of discovery have been searched for and not found. Jackson…
Read More The “Jackson Affidavit” in New York PracticeIn Husovic v. Structure Tone, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02954 (App. Div. April 18, 2019), the court upheld discovery sanctions against a defendant who failed to comply with court orders. From the decision: If any party . . . refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the…
Read More Three Discovery Violation Strikes: You’re OutIn Morales v. PepsiCo. Inc., 16-cv-6597, 2018 WL 3853390 (W.D.N.Y. August 14, 2018), the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his former employer alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. Not uncommonly, a discovery dispute arose. Among other issues contested…
Read More Court Addresses Discovery Relating to Emotional Distress Damages in Title VII Discrimination CaseIn A.L. v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 51033(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. June 21, 2018) (J. Tisch), the court awarded sanctions against the City of New York for its failure to provide discovery. From the decision: Regarding plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendants’ answer, the Court will not recite the facts but…
Read More Court Awards Sanctions Against City for Discovery FailuresIn Forman v. Henkin, 2018 NY Slip Op 01015 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2018), a personal injury case, the New York Court of Appeals provided guidance on how courts should evaluate discovery requests for discovery of information from litigants’ social media accounts. Judge DiFiore wrote: [C]ourts addressing disputes over the scope of social media discovery should…
Read More NY Court of Appeals Outlines Standards for Social Media DiscoveryEvery legal case is different. This is because there essentially is an infinite permutation of facts and circumstances that may give rise to a legal claim. Changing even one (seemingly inconsequential) fact, and you might very well get a different result. That said, lawsuits all have the same basic structure. Here I’ll outline the basic…
Read More The Litigation ProcessIn James v. 1620 Westchester Ave. LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01303 (App. Div. 1st Dept. Feb. 21, 2017), a personal injury case, the court held that plaintiff was not required to disclose medical records relating to “alcohol and drug treatment, mental health information, and HIV-related information”, even though plaintiff asserted that she suffered from anxiety…
Read More Certain Medical Records Not Subject to Disclosure in Personal Injury CaseIn Morshed v. St. Barnabas Hosp., No. 16 CIV. 2862 (LGS), 2017 WL 543236 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017), the court overruled defendants’ claims that ten documents were “privileged under the self-critical analysis privilege, peer review privilege and quality assurance privileges.”[1]Specifically, defendants asserted the following as grounds for their assertion of privilege: Rule 501 of the…
Read More Court Overrules Defendants’ Claims of Privilege in Sexual Harassment/Hostile Work Environment Case