Motion to Compel Discovery Denied

by

In O’Donnell v. Magazzino Italian Art Foundation et al, No. 25-CV-2918 (JGLC), 2026 WL 880646 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026), the court – applying the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (“EFAA”) – denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. In sum, plaintiff asserts retaliation claims under Title…

Read More Applying EFAA, Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration of Male Plaintiff’s Retaliation Claims Arising From Complaints About Treatment of Women
Share This:
by

In Lindsey v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 23-CV-10166 (ALC)(SN), 2026 WL 63219 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2026), in which plaintiff alleges claims of hostile work environment, gender discrimination, sexual assault, and retaliation, the court ruled on defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents in response to various discovery requests. One issue addressed by the…

Read More Court Denies Motion to Compel Disclosure of Romantic Relationships in Sexual Harassment Case
Share This:
by

In Argoti v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., No. 152903/2019, 2021 WL 2480058 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County June 17, 2021) – an employment discrimination / hostile work environment case –  the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to compel information regarding plaintiff’s medical treatment, which they contend was relevant to plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress…

Read More Hostile Work Environment Plaintiff May Refrain, For Now, From Producing Medical Discovery Relating to Emotional Distress Damages
Share This:
by

In Devany v. United Parcel Services, Inc., 18-cv-6684, 2020 WL 5876245 (S.D.N.Y Oct. 2, 2020), a disability discrimination case, the court upheld the denial of plaintiff’s request for discovery relating to other employees. In this case, plaintiff asserts that he was terminated because of his disability (alcoholism), and that the defendant’s proffered reason (the violation…

Read More Alcoholism-Disability Discrimination Plaintiff Not Entitled to Discovery of Non-Similarly Situated Employees, Court Rules
Share This: