Nock v. Spring Energy RRH, LLC et al

Filing 163

ORDER denying 130 Letter Motion for Discovery. The motion is denied. NSL has complied with the Court's orders and requests for declarations confirming compliance. Plaintiff's suggestion that NSL spoliated evidence is speculative. Plaint iff did not effect service of subpoenas on NSL until at least March 4, 2024, three-and-a-half weeks after Google's first production. NSL previously explained at deposition and before this Court their practice with respect to deleting email. The deletion of some emails in February 2024 (even before Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted service of NSL on February 16, 2024) would be consistent with that practice. Plaintiff has not presented evidence of when the emails in question were actually de leted. Plaintiff had the opportunity to, and did, inquire about NSL email and email practices at deposition of NSL on May 31, 2024. Plaintiff has not requested a follow up deposition. Plaintiff has not established a basis for imposing contempt sancti ons.For similar reasons forensic examination is not warranted. Nor is it likely to be productive; Plaintiff concedes that such examination is "unlikely" to remediate lost evidence. (Dkt. 151 at 2.)The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the letter motion at Dkt. 130.SO ORDERED. Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 9/24/2024) (mml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
ROBERT NOCK,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
- against :
:
SPRING ENERGY RRH, LLC, et al,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------X

23-CV-1042 (JHR) (RWL)
ORDER

ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, United States Magistrate Judge.
This order resolves Plaintiff’s renewed letter motion at Dkt. 130 to hold non-parties
NSL Marketing, LLC and Neil St. Louis (collectively, NSL) in contempt for violating their
discovery obligations. The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s first motion to hold NSL in
contempt but required NSL to conduct certain additional discovery tasks. (See Dkt. 122.)
Plaintiff contends that NSL has violated the Court’s discovery orders, and, in particular,
contends that email headers produced by Google on August 16, 2024 are fewer than
those produced by Google on February 7, 2024, thereby “suggesting” that NSL spoliated
evidence. (Dkt. 151 at 1.) Nock also reiterates his request for forensic examination of
NSL’s devices and accounts.
The motion is denied. NSL has complied with the Court’s orders and requests for
declarations confirming compliance. Plaintiff’s suggestion that NSL spoliated evidence is
speculative. Plaintiff did not effect service of subpoenas on NSL until at least March 4,
2024, three-and-a-half weeks after Google’s first production. NSL previously explained
at deposition and before this Court their practice with respect to deleting email. The
deletion of some emails in February 2024 (even before Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted
1

service of NSL on February 16, 2024) would be consistent with that practice. Plaintiff has
not presented evidence of when the emails in question were actually deleted. Plaintiff
had the opportunity to, and did, inquire about NSL email and email practices at deposition
of NSL on May 31, 2024. Plaintiff has not requested a follow up deposition. Plaintiff has
not established a basis for imposing contempt sanctions.
For similar reasons forensic examination is not warranted. Nor is it likely to be
productive; Plaintiff concedes that such examination is “unlikely” to remediate lost
evidence. (Dkt. 151 at 2.)
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the letter motion at Dkt. 130.

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________
ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: September 24, 2024
New York, New York
Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record.

2