Graham v. Delaware-Chenango-Madison-Otsego Board of Cooperative Educational Services
3:24-cv-00495
N.D.N.Y.Apr 22, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Scott Graham filed a lawsuit against Delaware-Chenango-Madison-Otsego Board of Cooperative Educational Services and its Board, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
- Defendants sought ten years of Graham's prior and current employment records to support an after-acquired evidence defense, prompting a dispute over the scope of permissible discovery.
- Magistrate Judge Lovric ordered Graham to provide the requested authorizations, finding both relevance and waiver of objections to production; he also granted Defendants leave to file an amended answer.
- Graham appealed the order and sought to stay enforcement pending appeal, arguing the records' disclosure was overbroad and intrusive, and that he had not validly waived objections.
- The District Judge granted a stay of the order requiring employment record authorizations pending appeal, but denied as moot the stay relating to the amended answer since it had already been filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stay of order for employment records | Disclosure is overbroad, not proportional | Authorization proper, relevant | Stay granted pending appeal on authorizations |
| Relevance of employment records | Records not automatically relevant | After-acquired evidence defense | Plaintiff likely to succeed; discovery order was overbroad |
| Waiver of objections to discovery demand | Late response was administratively excused | Late response = waiver | No proper waiver; totality of facts did not justify waiver |
| Stay of amended answer order | Should be stayed pending appeal | N/A | Denied as moot; amended answer already filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Millson, 592 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2010) (District court reviews magistrate discovery orders for clear error or contrary to law)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) (After-acquired evidence defense supports only targeted, not wholesale, discovery)
- Thapa v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 323 (2d Cir. 2006) (Appellate courts apply a sliding-scale analysis to stays pending appeal)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (Party seeking stay bears burden to justify need based on several factors)