Claridge Associates, LLC et al v. Schepis et al

Filing 205

ORDER terminating 198 Letter Motion for Conference; granting in part and denying in part 199 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. First, the Court adopts Plaintiffs' proposed deposition schedule. (See Dkt. #198). Although Defenda nt is correct that there is not significant overlap between the parties to the Connecticut arbitration and those to the instant litigation, Defendants' counsel had already proposed a similar schedule in January of this year, to which Plaintiffs agreed. (See Dkt. #198, Ex. F). Given the general delay of Defendants and their counsel in setting, and then attempting to alter, that schedule, the Court will resolve the issue by adopting a schedule similar to one to which counsel for the parties initially agreed. Additionally, the Court declines to order that Defendants take the deposition of Plaintiffs' counsel at this time. The Court and the parties will address this issue if and when a trial date is scheduled and Plaintiffs' cou nsel is listed as a trial witness. Second, Plaintiffs' motion to quash is granted in part and denied in part. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Relevance under Rule 26 "'is an extremely broad concept.'" Joseph v. Gnutti Carlo S.p.A., No. 15 Civ. 8910 (AJN), 2016 WL 4083433, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2016) (quoting Che n-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). That said, [d]iscovery may be curtailed where the information sought would be 'unreasonably cumulative or duplicative' or when 'the burden or expense of the propose d discovery outweighs its likely benefit.'" Blagman v. Apple, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 5453 (ALC) (JCF), 2014 WL 1285496, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)), as further set forth. Accordingly, the motion to quash is also granted as to topic nine. In sum, Plaintiffs' motion to quash Defendants' third-party subpoenas (Dkt. #199), is granted with respect to topics two, eight, and nine, but is otherwise denied (see Dkt. #204, Ex. 1-8). Additionally, as discussed above, the Court adopts Plaintiffs' proposed deposition schedule. (See Dkt. #198). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 2/9/2021) (mml)

Case 1:15-cv-04514-KPF Document 205 Filed 02/09/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CLARIDGE ASSOCIATES, LLC, JAMISCOTT,
LLC, LESLIE SCHNEIDER, and LILLIAN
SCHNEIDER,
Plaintiffs,
-v.ANTHONY SCHEPIS, FRANK CANELAS,
RUTH CANELAS, and NORTHEAST CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC,

15 Civ. 4514 (KPF)
ORDER

Defendants.
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of the parties’ submissions regarding the
establishment of a deposition schedule (Dkt. #198, 200, 203), as well as
Plaintiffs’ motion to quash certain third-party subpoenas (Dkt. #199), and
Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to quash (Dkt. #204). The Court
believes these issues can be resolved without a conference and addresses them
in turn.
First, the Court adopts Plaintiffs’ proposed deposition schedule. (See
Dkt. #198). Although Defendant is correct that there is not significant overlap
between the parties to the Connecticut arbitration and those to the instant
litigation, Defendants’ counsel had already proposed a similar schedule in
January of this year, to which Plaintiffs agreed. (See Dkt. #198, Ex. F). Given
the general delay of Defendants and their counsel in setting, and then
attempting to alter, that schedule, the Court will resolve the issue by adopting
a schedule similar to one to which counsel for the parties initially agreed.

Case 1:15-cv-04514-KPF Document 205 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 3

Additionally, the Court declines to order that Defendants take the deposition of
Plaintiffs’ counsel at this time. The Court and the parties will address this
issue if and when a trial date is scheduled and Plaintiffs’ counsel is listed as a
trial witness.
Second, Plaintiffs’ motion to quash is granted in part and denied in part.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or
defense of any party.” Relevance under Rule 26 “‘is an extremely broad
concept.’” Joseph v. Gnutti Carlo S.p.A., No. 15 Civ. 8910 (AJN), 2016 WL
4083433, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2016) (quoting Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs
& Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). That said, “[d]iscovery may be
curtailed where the information sought would be ‘unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative’ or when ‘the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.’” Blagman v. Apple, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 5453 (ALC)
(JCF), 2014 WL 1285496, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(2)(C)).
The Court agrees with Defendants that there are issues left unresolved
by the Court’s prior opinions in this case, especially with respect to Plaintiffs’
unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel claims, and thus topics one
through eight are arguably relevant under Rule 26’s broad standard. However,
the Court finds that topics two and eight are highly likely to include documents
that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or workproduct privilege. Therefore, and in consideration of the breadth of the other
2

Case 1:15-cv-04514-KPF Document 205 Filed 02/09/21 Page 3 of 3

topics, the motion to quash is granted as to topics two and eight. Furthermore,
the Court finds that topic nine is unduly broad and is therefore not
proportional to either the needs of the case, or to the minimal relevance vel non
of any responsive documents to the remaining disputed issues in this case.
Accordingly, the motion to quash is also granted as to topic nine.
In sum, Plaintiffs’ motion to quash Defendants’ third-party subpoenas
(Dkt. #199), is granted with respect to topics two, eight, and nine, but is
otherwise denied (see Dkt. #204, Ex. 1-8). Additionally, as discussed above,
the Court adopts Plaintiffs’ proposed deposition schedule. (See Dkt. #198).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 9, 2021
New York, New York

__________________________________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

3