Valentine v. Sperry Tents Hamptons, 2:24-cv-03347

Diane Valentine sued Sperry Tents Hamptons alleging discrimination and retaliation under federal (Title VII, ADA, ADEA) and New York state law.
Defendant served a subpoena on Valentine’s former counsel, Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP (VKV), seeking documents related to the underlying claims.
Plaintiff moved to quash the subpoena, arguing it is overbroad, seeks privileged information, and information can be obtained from her directly.
Defendant asserted the requests are relevant, not privileged, and necessary due to evidence spoliation concerns related to Valentine’s company laptop.
The Court was asked to decide whether to quash the non-party subpoena or compel production.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Overbreadth/Relevance	The subpoena is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence	Subpoena seeks directly relevant, non-privileged material necessary for defense	Not overbroad; requests are relevant and proportional
Privileged Documents	Document preservation communications and advice are privileged	Preservation/engagement letters generally not privileged; spoliation exceptions apply	Preservation/engagement letters generally discoverable; privilege log required if redacting
Alternative Source	Information can be obtained from Plaintiff directly	Due to alleged spoliation, VKV’s records may be the only source	Information from VKV may be uniquely necessary; subpoena justified
Undue Burden	No specific demonstration of burden on VKV	No showing of undue burden; production feasible and limited in time	No undue burden shown; subpoena stands

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (defining broad scope of discoverable relevance in civil litigation)
In re County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413 (2d Cir. 2007) (core elements of attorney-client privilege)
United States v. Ghavami, 882 F.Supp.2d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (discussing the scope of privilege and client communications)