Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00142.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-7 Filed 01/08/24 Page 16 of 29 ARGUMENT In light of non-party Ms. Ransome’s diligent efforts to satisfy Defendant’s needs for discovery, the Court should enter a protective order against further discovery (DE 640) and deny Defendant’s Combined Motion to Compel! (DE 655). As explained in Non-Party Ransome’s Motion for Protective Order, Defendant should not be allowed to use the discovery process as a means of intimidating and harassing a non-party. Counsel is not permitted to intentionally harass or embarrass a non-party witness during a deposition. See Smartix International LLC v. Garrubbo, Romankow & Capese, No. 06 CIV 1501 (JGK), 2007 WL 41666035 at *2 (S.D.N.Y Nov. 20, 2007) (court protecting deponent from annoyance, embarrassment and harassment by denying party’s attempt to obtain personnel records relating to non-party). Courts are more vigilant with these protections when the discovery is being sought from a non-party. “[T]he fact of non-party status may be considered by the Court in weighing the burdens imposed in the circumstances.” Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984 F.2d 422, 424 (Fed.Cir.1993); accord Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2014); see also Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood ' In her Motion to Compel, Defendant failed to comply with Local Rule 37.1 and only inserted selected text from certain objections. Rule 37.1 requires: “upon any motion or application involving discovery or disclosure requests or responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, the moving party shall specify and quote or set forth verbatim in the motion papers each discovery request and response to which the motion or application is addressed.” For all of the discovery items upon which Defendant moves, Defendant has wholly failed to do this. Upon a motion to compel, a court is called upon to evaluate the discovery requests as well as the responses and objections. Local Rule 37.1 is designed to protect against the exact type of self-serving omission of the responding party’s objections that Defendant has done in her brief. Accordingly, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion in its entirety for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1. See Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc., 2016 WL 4203490, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (denying motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1 (which is the same rule in the Eastern District of New York)); see also Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 2, Non-Party Sarah Ransome’s Responses and Objections to Defendant’s Subpoena Requests. 12