277 F.R.D. 90
W.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Carlson sues for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, NYHRL, and FMLA; alleged harassment by Pullen and retaliation including demotion after complaints.
- Multiple discovery motions are pending: Carlson seeks protective orders to bar further discovery; defendants seek to extend discovery, depose Carlson and her ex-husband, and obtain medical records.
- Discovery deadlines have been extended several times; the most recent deadline expired September 30, 2010.
- Defendants sought to depose Carlson (and Craig Carlson) and to obtain records from Smith, Brennan, and Hedgepath; Carlson challenged production and sought protective orders.
- Court addresses whether protective orders are appropriate, whether discovery should be reopened, and whether any sanctions or limits on evidence are warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective order is appropriate against discovery. | Carlson: protective order needed due to lack of diligence and burden. | Defendants: routine discovery should continue; protective order unnecessary. | Denied protective order; good-cause standard not met for shielding discovery. |
| Whether the discovery period should be extended to depose Carlson and her ex-husband and obtain medical records. | N/A | Defendants showed diligence with Carlson deposition but not with ex-husband deposition or records. | Extension granted for Carlson deposition and medical records; limited scope agreed. |
| Whether Craig Carlson’s deposition should be allowed given discovery timing. | Opposed deposition beyond deadline? (Carlson did not oppose initially). | Deposition sought near/after deadline; diligence lacking. | Denied deposition of Craig Carlson for lack of diligent handling before deadline. |
| Whether Carlson must produce Brennan and Hedgepath medical records and supplement disclosures. | Carlson must supplement and produce records; she initiated contacts. | Records should be produced; supplementation required. | Carlson must execute new authorizations; Brennan records may be compelled; Hedgepath records to be addressed by court order. |
| Whether the court should preclude Carlson’s emotional distress evidence as a sanction. | N/A | Failure to provide records could justify sanctions. | Preclusion denied as overly harsh; sanction not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp., 769 F.2d 919 (2d Cir. 1985) (denying further discovery when ample opportunity existed)
- Trebor Sportswear Co., Inc. v. The Limited Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506 (2d Cir. 1989) (good-ccause standard for discovery extensions; diligence required)
- In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F.Supp.2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (protective order standards and discovery-related sanctions)
- Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Publ’g, Ltd., 843 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1988) (oversight and diligence principles in discovery)