Trilegiant Corp. v. Sitel Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71815
| S.D.N.Y. | 2011Background
- Trilegiant sues Sitel for breach of contract over allegedly missing audio POEs and related records.
- Sitel moved to compel discovery responses and sought sanctions and a discovery-extension.
- 11/15/2010 Order required extensive production by December 15, 2010; 2/16/2011 Order extended categories for production by February 21, 2011.
- Howrey dissolution and the Chicago office closure delayed Trilegiant’s access to case files and slowed production into May 2011; electronic files became available mid-May 2011.
- Sitel sought relief for late production and a potential one-year extension; court granted partial relief and set new deadlines (by July 22, 2011 for specific productions; August 22, 2011 for follow-ups).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions for late discovery production are warranted. | Sitel argues noncompliance warrants sanctions. | Trilegiant’s delays were due to Howrey dissolution and file transfers. | Sanctions not warranted; partial grant of production deadlines with July 22, 2011 deadline. |
| Duty to produce underlying documents for damages spreadsheet. | White mail backing the damages spreadsheet should be produced. | Producing white mail is unduly burdensome and not proportionate. | Trilegiant must produce the white mail only if Sitel bears retrieval costs; otherwise cost-shifting applies. |
| Must Trilegiant produce documents related to documents 20 and 25 concerning damages and third-party vendors; | These documents show actual damages and related costs. | Requests are burdensome or beyond prior orders. | Document 20 by July 22, 2011; Document 25 production required or lose ability to rely on those documents. |
| Duty to produce materials related to the Vendor Standards Manual and liquidated damages. | Manual and related metadata terms should be produced for interpretation of damages provision. | Production of signed copy and metadata may be insufficient or burdensome. | Produce documents by July 22, 2011; failure to produce may preclude later reliance on those documents. |
| Whether further production on documents 3, 4, and 18 is required and whether 14 is proper. | Complete production of all relevant manuals and related documents. | Requests 14 was adequately addressed; no discovery misstep shown. | Produce documents 3, 4, and 18 by July 22, 2011; deny further production for 14 as lacking identified withheld documents. |
| Whether to extend the discovery schedule for a full year. | One year needed for parity and ongoing production. | One year is overly long; hierarchical extension considered in light of counsel absence. | Not a full-year extension; July 22, 2011 production deadline and August 22, 2011 follow-up window granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe Entertainment, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 205 F.R.D. 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (court may shift costs for document production when search is costly and complex)
- Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortgage Corp., 555 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2009) (factors for evaluating sanctions, including willfulness and prejudice)
- Nieves v. City of New York, 208 F.R.D. 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (scope and appropriateness of sanctions and discovery rulings)
- In re Six Grand Jury Witnesses, 979 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1992) (sanctions and discovery limits for noncompliance considerations)