Knopf et al v. Esposito et al
Filing
308
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 280 Motion to Compel. The plaintiffs' January 19, 2021 motion to compel testimony from Ringel is denied. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 1/27/2021) (nb)
Case 1:17-cv-05833-DLC Document 308 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------- X
:
NORMA KNOPF and MICHAEL KNOPF,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
-v:
:
FRANK M. ESPOSITO, DORSEY & WHITNEY,
:
LLP, NATHANIEL H. AKERMAN, EDWARD S.
:
FELDMAN, and MICHAEL HAYDEN SANFORD,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------- X
17cv5833(DLC)
MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER
DENISE COTE, District Judge:
On December 14, 2020, non-party Melissa Ringel invoked her
Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during her
deposition.
A little over a month later, the plaintiffs contend
Ringel has waived her Fifth Amendment privilege and should be
compelled to respond to the questions they posed to her in
December.
For the following reasons, the plaintiffs’
application is denied.
The plaintiffs have brought several related cases.
In
Knopf v. Phillips, et al., 16-cv-6601 (S.D.N.Y.) (DLC), the
Knopfs sued Michael Phillips for fraudulent conveyance in
violation of New York law.
The Knopfs alleged that Phillips
purchased real property located at 44 East 67th Street, Apt.
Penthouse C, New York, New York (“the Penthouse”) despite
knowing that the seller, Michael Sanford, had several agreements
Case 1:17-cv-05833-DLC Document 308 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 4
with the Knopfs that prohibited the sale of the Penthouse.
The
plaintiffs deposed Ringel in Phillips on August 15, 2017 (“2017
Deposition”).
During the 2017 Deposition, the plaintiffs
inquired, inter alia, about a telephone conversation in which
Ringel participated on January 12, 2016 (“2016 Telephone Call”).
Ringel answered the questions.
The plaintiffs deposed Ringel in the instant action,
Esposito, on December 14, 2020 (“2020 Deposition”).
In
Esposito, the Knopfs have sued attorneys Frank Esposito,
Nathaniel Akerman, and Edward Feldman, as well as the law firm
Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, for conspiracy to violate 42 U.S.C. §
1983 to deprive the Knopfs of their constitutional right to due
process.
The § 1983 claim is based upon the Knopfs’ allegations
that Sanford hired Esposito knowing that Esposito was married to
Ringel, who worked as an attorney at the New York Supreme Court
Appellate Division.
The Knopfs allege that Esposito discussed
with Ringel a series of orders issued by the Appellate Division
related to the Penthouse.
The Knopfs further allege that, as a
result of these discussions, Ringel agreed to opine to the
defendant attorneys about the Appellate Division’s orders
regarding the Penthouse during the 2016 Telephone Call and that
the effect of the conversation was to eliminate restraints on
Sanford’s sale of the Penthouse.
In response to the plaintiffs’
questions about the 2016 Telephone Call during the 2020
2
Case 1:17-cv-05833-DLC Document 308 Filed 01/27/21 Page 3 of 4
Deposition, Ringel invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination and declined to answer their questions.
The plaintiffs moved on January 19 for an Order overruling
Ringel’s objections to the deposition questions that were based
on the privilege against self-incrimination.
On January 22,
Ringel filed a letter opposing the plaintiffs’ January 19
motion.
The only dispute is whether Esposito constitutes the
same judicial proceeding as Phillips such that Ringel has waived
her privilege against self-incrimination with respect to
questions about the 2016 Telephone Call.
A court must “indulge every reasonable presumption against
finding a testimonial waiver.”
287 (2d Cir. 1981).
Klein v. Harris, 667 F.2d 274,
Among other things, a testimonial waiver
may be inferred only if the prior statements were “voluntarily
made under oath in the context of the same judicial proceeding.”
Id. at 288.
“A waiver of the privilege in one proceeding does
not affect a witness' rights in another proceeding.”
United
States v. James, 609 F.2d 36, 45 (2d Cir. 1979); see also United
States v. Miranti, 253 F.2d 135, 139-40 (2d Cir. 1958).
Even
when the statements are made in the “same” proceeding, the prior
disclosure may not constitute a waiver when “during the period
between the successive proceedings conditions might have changed
creating new grounds for apprehension . . . .”
F.2d at 140.
3
Miranti, 253
Case 1:17-cv-05833-DLC Document 308 Filed 01/27/21 Page 4 of 4
Phillips and Esposito do not constitute the same judicial
proceeding for the purpose of a testimonial waiver.
Phillips
and Esposito are separate actions alleging distinct claims
against different defendants.
Indeed, Ringel is not mentioned
in the Amended Complaint in Phillips.
Ringel is mentioned in
the Second Amended Complaint in Esposito, and her husband is
named as a defendant.
Additionally, there are “new grounds for
apprehension” for Ringel since the 2017 Deposition.
Conclusion
The plaintiffs’ January 19, 2021 motion to compel testimony
from Ringel is denied.
Dated:
New York, New York
January 27, 2021
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?