Stocking v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC

Filing 137

MEMO ENDORSED ORDER with respect to 133 Motion. ENDORSEMENT: Newmark is directed to respond by December 6, 2024. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 11/22/2024) (mml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------- X
MARIA STOCKING,
22 CV 07347 (ER)
Plaintiff,
-against-

Newmark is directed to respond by
December 6, 2024.
SO ORDERED.

NEWMARK KNIGHT FRANK
VALUATION & ADVISORY, LLC,
Defendants.

Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J.
Dated: November 22, 2024
New York, New York

----------------------------------------------------------- X
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION UPON
WRITTEN QUESTIONS, PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S
IMPROPER FILING
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Maria Stocking, pro se, respectfully moves this Court for the issuance of a subpoena for
a deposition upon written questions to Jane Doe, as well as a protective order to safeguard her
anonymity and well-being. Additionally, Plaintiff requests that the Court strike the Defendant’s
filing dated November 8, 2024 Doc. 121, which improperly disclosed Jane Doe’s name. This
disclosure violates the principles of confidentiality underlying the pending protective order, risks
harm to the witness and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

BACKGROUND
1. On November, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena for Deposition Upon
Written Questions and a Protective Order Doc.118, requesting that the Court protect the
anonymity of Jane Doe and facilitate the preservation of her testimony.
2. On November 5, 2024, this Court issued a Memo Endorsement directing Defendant
Newmark to file any opposition by November 8, 2024.
3. Despite the pending motion and Plaintiff’s explicit request for anonymity, Defendant
disclosed Jane Doe’s real name in a filing submitted on November 8, 2024, Doc.121
pages 2-3.
4. This disclosure undermines the purpose of the requested protective measures, creates a
chilling effect on Jane Doe’s willingness to testify, and represents bad-faith conduct
aimed at intimidating the witness.
LEGAL BASIS
This motion is grounded in the following rules and principles:
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45: Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas.
2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31: Permitting depositions upon written questions.
3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c): Allowing protective orders to safeguard
individuals from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Grant this motion for the issuance of a subpoena to Jane Doe for a deposition upon
written questions.
2. Grant a protective order to safeguard the witness’s privacy and well-being.
3. Strike the Defendant’s filing dated November 8, 2024 Doc. 121, which improperly
disclosed Jane Doe’s name, from the record.
4. Direct Defendant to file an amended version of their filing with all references to Jane
Doe’s identity redacted.
5. Grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.
CONCLUSION
The improper disclosure of Jane Doe’s identity by the Defendant has jeopardized the principles
of confidentiality in this matter and risks emotional distress and professional retaliation to the
witness. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue the necessary subpoena, grant the
protective order, and strike the offending filing to ensure the fair administration of justice and
prevent further harm.
Dated: November 21, 2024
/s/Maria Stocking
Miami, Florida

Maria Stocking
888 Biscayne Boulevard, 57 th Floor
Miami, Florida 33132
786-857-3681
[e-mail]
Plaintiff