Haley Perrotte v. Bloomberg, L.P., et al., and "John Does" 1–10
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Employment law discovery dispute over subpoenas for financial records and a nonparty deposition related to claimed lost wages and mitigation.
Granted plaintiff’s letter application to quash defendants’ subpoenas to J.P. Morgan Chase and to nonparty Catherine Vance Thompson.
Modified to permit Thompson’s deposition upon issuance of a new subpoena; otherwise the order quashing the Chase subpoena was affirmed.
Chase records reflected credit card transactions irrelevant to lost wages, while Bank of America records showed checks from Thompson noting "invoices," making Thompson’s testimony material and necessary to whether plaintiff worked post-termination and mitigation; plaintiff also failed to preserve any defect challenge to Thompson’s subpoena.
Background
Plaintiff, asserting she has not worked since her termination and seeks lost wages, moved via letter application to quash defendants’ subpoenas for her J.P. Morgan Chase records and for the deposition of nonparty Catherine Vance Thompson. Defendants already possessed plaintiff’s Bank of America records reflecting large deposits, including several checks from Thompson with memo lines for "invoices." The trial court granted the application. On appeal, the court first held the status conference order resolving the letter application was appealable because both sides were heard and a reviewable record was created.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff’s letter application and quashed defendants’ subpoenas to J.P. Morgan Chase (credit card records) and to nonparty Catherine Vance Thompson.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified: it affirmed quashing the Chase subpoena as irrelevant to lost wages and unnecessary given other banking records, but allowed defendants to depose Thompson upon service of a new subpoena because payments labeled as "invoices" made her testimony material and necessary. Plaintiff’s argument that Thompson’s subpoena was defective was unpreserved, and a new subpoena with a new date is required.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that credit card transaction histories generally lack relevance to lost wages claims, while third-party discovery is permitted where bank records indicate potential post-termination income relevant to credibility and mitigation. Confirms that status conference orders resolving letter applications are appealable when the parties had an opportunity to be heard and a record exists.
In employment cases, courts will quash overbroad financial subpoenas lacking relevance (e.g., credit card transactions) but will permit targeted nonparty discovery where bank records suggest possible post-termination earnings bearing on mitigation and credibility.