| As Andrew Cuomo Sued for
Sexual Harassment by Bennett
Discovery Disputes Debated
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
Oct 1 – In the sexual
harassment case of Charlotte
Bennett against Andrew Cuomo a
discovery conference was held
on October 1 before U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Magistrate Judge Sarah L.
Cave. Inner City Press live
tweeted it - thread:
Counsel: We're
talking 4000 text messages.
Proportionality is the gold
standard in determining
discovery. Anything additional
would be of only marginal
value. Yes, one of the photos
was redacted...
Judge: I thought there were
more redactions.
Counsel: We have
not seen black-box redactions.
As a matter of law, text
message chains are a single
document. We have a protective
order here - there is no
burden in producing them.
We've only gotten 400 of 4000
pages
Melissa DeRosa's
counsel Sulkowski: The
omission of pages of a text
chain is a redaction - Judge:
That is not a good argument,
Ms. Sulkowski. But we do need
to ask Ms. [Lillia] McEnaney
to produce the videos.
McEnaney's lawyer: We have to
watch each video
Judge: I regret
it's a burden, but it has to
be done. Can you complete
review and production by the
end of the month? McEnaney's
lawyer: No. She has a full
time job. There are 100s of
videos. And I am the managing
partner of a small law firm.
Judge: I'm
going to give her a month to
do it. October 31. If you end
of needing more, you can apply
to me. McEnaney's lawyer: I
hope the product is worth the
emotional distress my client
will feel. She had a panic
attack. Judge: I regret it.
But you must produce
Charlotte
Bennett's lawyer: The
defendants have delayed, they
have made us pay for all the
re-imaging of the multiple
iPhones. We have spend 100s of
lawyer hours going through the
materials and videos. We want
this to move forward. The
defendants want to
delay...Cuomo's lawyer: Ms.
Bennett knew she would have to
produce discovery. It is not
just a technical problem. We
want to correct the public
record why we have had to
expend resources - it is NOT
because we are weaponizing the
judicial system, that impugns
our client
Cuomo's lawyer:
We want to depose Ms. Bennett
before the end of the year -
and for that, she will have to
complete discovery production
by the end of October. This is
frustrating. Judge: I
understand. By the end of
October. Bennett's
lawyer: We have worked hard
Judge: No one has
explicitly asked for an
extension of discovery and I'm
not giving one out. We don't
need to have every document in
order to do the depositions.
Let's calendar them. DeRosa's
lawyer: Plaintiff's counsel is
interfering- Bennett's lawyer:
We object
Judge: You
have to get through this case
together. Be nice. I know the
parties despise each other
Cuomo's lawyer: We remain
concerned about plaintiff's
counsel's statements to the
press. I am not specifically
seeking a gag order but I want
to raise it as an issue
Cuomo's
lawyer: It's an attempt to
prejudice our client. Judge:
No relief is being sought. We
are adjourned. Inner City
Press will continue to cover
the cases- The case is Bennett
v. Cuomo, et al.,
1:22-cv-07846 (Broderick /
Cave)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2024 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
