Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc. (1999)

Grp., Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 268 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Indeed, “[r]arely will an attorney’s conduct so infect a trial with undue prejudice or passion as to require reversal.” Marcic, 397 F.3d at 124 (quoting Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group, Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 271 (2d Cir. 1999)).

May 29, 2015) (quoting Reilly, 181 F.3d at 267). 1.

Id. at 2. 23 Reilly, 181 F.3d at 268. 24 Dkt. 668 at 1. 6 prepare the designee “to the extent matters are reasonably available, whether from documents, past employees or other sources.”25 Prior to producing Mr. Hashemi to testify on all 29 topics, ED&F did not object to the topics as being overbroad or move for a protective order.26 ED&F therefore cannot at this point argue by implication, as it seeks to do, that Mr. Hashemi could not reasonably have been prepared to answer …

Fujitsu, 247 F.3d at 436 ; see also Reilly, 181 F.3d at 267 (“Trial judges should have the leeway to tailor sanctions to insure that spoliators do not benefit from their wrongdoing — a remedial purpose that is best adjusted according to the facts and evidentiary posture of each case.”).

Jan. 11, 2008) (quoting Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 267 (2d Cir.1999)).

The failure to preserve evidence falls “along a continuum of fault— ranging from innocence through the degrees of negligence to intentionality.” See Taylor, 293 F.R.D. at 612 (citing Reilly, 181 F.3d at 267).

May 29, 2015) (quoting Reilly, 181 F.3d at 267).

Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), “when a party seeking to depose a corporation announces the subject matter of the proposed deposition, the corporation must produce someone familiar with that subject.” Reilly v. NatWest Markets Grp., Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 268 (2d Cir. 1999).

State of Mind The loss or destruction of evidence “occur[s] along a continuum of fault – ranging from innocence through the degrees of negligence to intentionality.” Reilly, 181 F.3d at 267 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

"Failures to preserve evidence 'occur along a continuum of fault – ranging from innocence through the degrees of negligence to intentionality.'" Rabenstein v. Sealift, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 3d 343, 362 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Reilly, 181 F.3d at 267).

"Failures to preserve evidence 'occur along a continuum of fault – ranging from innocence through the degrees of negligence to intentionality.'" Rabenstein v. Sealift, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 3d 343, 362 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Reilly, 181 F.3d at 267).

The trial court has “the leeway to tailor sanctions to insure that spoliators do not benefit from their wrongdoing — a remedial purpose that is best adjusted according to the facts and evidentiary posture of each case.” Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 267 (2d Cir.1999) (citation omitted); see also West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 780 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that, in case of spoliation, trial court could, for example, instruct jury to make a…

Inc., 181 F.3d 253 , 268 (2d Cir. 1999) (“To satisfy Rule 30(b)(6), the corporate deponent has an affirmative duty to make available such number of persons as will be able to give complete, knowledgeable and binding answers on its behalf.”) (cleaned up). 8 Id. at 21:21–23; 21:24–22:1. 9 Id. at 42:24–43:1; 39:21–23; 44:6–11.

Grp., Inc., 181 F.3d 253 , 268 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Under Rule 30(b)(6), when a party seeking to depose a corporation announces the subject matter of the proposed deposition, the corporation must produce someone familiar with that topic.”) (emphasis added).

No. 585, at 35-37). “[A] party seeking a new trial on the basis of opposing counsel's improper statements to the jury faces a heavy burden, as ‘[r]arely will an attorney's conduct so infect a trial with undue prejudice or passion as to require reversal.’” Marcic, 397 F.3d at 124 (quoting Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group, Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 271 (2d Cir.1999).

A plaintiff may assert causes of action for both breach of contract and promissory estoppel if there is ”a dispute over the existence, scope, or enforceability of the putative contract.” Id. at 215 (quoting Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 263 (2d Cir. 1999)).

Ke, 595 F. Supp.2d at 262 (citing Reilly v. NatWest Markets Group, Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 265 (2d Cir. 1999)); Ting Yao Lin v. Hayashi Ya II, Inc., No. 08-CV-6071, 2009 WL 289653 , at *7 (S.D.N.Y.

Inc., 181 F.3d at 267.

Ke, 595 F. Supp.2d at 262 (citing Reilly v. NatWest Markets Group, Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 265 (2d Cir. 1999)); Ting Yao Lin v. Hayashi Ya II, Inc., No. 08-CV-6071, 2009 WL 289653 , at *7 (S.D.N.Y.

Rule 30(b)(6) Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), “when a party seeking to depose a corporation announces the subject matter of the proposed deposition, the corporation must produce someone familiar with that subject.” Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group, Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 268 (2d Cir. 1999). �is representative must “testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization.” Fed.

Inc., 181 F.3d 253 , 268 (2d Cir. 1999) (“To satisfy Rule 30(b)(6), the corporate deponent has an affirmative duty to make available such number of persons as will be able to give complete, knowledgeable and binding answers on its behalf.”) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Inc., 181 F.3d 253 , 267 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Whether exercising its inherent power, or acting pursuant to Rule 37, a district court has wide discretion in sanctioning a party for discovery abuses. . . .”).

Law § 663 ; Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 265 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding that the NYLL permits an award of both liquidated damages and prejudgment interest); see also Pineda v. Tokana Cafe Bar Restorant Inc., No. 16-CV-01155, 2017 WL 1194242 , at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“Prejudgment interest may be awarded in addition to liquidated damages under NYLL but not under the FLSA.”).

Inc., 181 F.3d 253 , 266 (2d Cir, 1999) (“Evidence of wealth ... is generally inadmissible in trials not involving punitive damages.”); Laidlaw v. Sage, 158 N.Y. 73, 103 (N.Y. 1899) (“Evidence of the wealth of a party is never admissible, directly or otherwise, unless in those exceptional cases, where position or wealth is necessarily involved in determining the damages sustained.”).

Cos., 397 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group, Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 271 (2d Cir. 1999)).

As indicated above, Plaintiffs may maintain an unjust enrichment claim only insofar as “there is a dispute over the existence, 22 scope, or enforceability of the putative contract.” Reilly, 181 F.3d at 263.

When this scenario arises, “[t]o satisfy Rule 30(b)(6), the corporate deponent has an affirmative duty to make available [a representative] able to give complete, knowledgeable and binding answers on its behalf.” Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 268 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted).

See NYCPLR §§ 5001, 5004; Reilly, 181 F.3d at 265.

“When a party fails to comply with Rule 30(b)(6), Rule 37 allows courts to impose various sanctions, including the preclusion of evidence.” Reilly, 181 F.3d at 268.

(Report at 8-9.) Unfortunately, “clients are bound by the action—or, in this case, the inaction—of their attorneys when they act in their representative capacities.” (/d. at 9 (citing Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 271 (2d Cir. 1999)).) This demonstrates that Ramos failed to rebut the timely receipt of notice.

“Whether exercising its inherent power, or acting pursuant to Rule 37, a district court has wide discretion in sanctioning a party for discovery abuses.” Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 267 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing New York State NOW v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339 , 1354 (2d Cir. 1989).

Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 268 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotations omitted).

Sept. 30, 2019) (quoting Reilly, 181 F.3d at 267).

See NYLL § 198(1-a) (“In any action instituted in the courts upon a wage claim by an employee or the commissioner in which the employee prevails, the court shall allow such employee to recover . . . prejudgment interest as required under the civil practice law and rules, and . . . an additional amount as liquidated damages. . . .”); § 663(1) (same); Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 265 (2d Cir. 1999); Pineda v. Frisolino, Inc., No. 15-CV-3774 (GBD), 2017 W…

Inc., 181 F.3d 253 , 271 (2d Cir. 1999) ("While plaintiffs are not required to plead defamation in haec verba, [an] unsupported claim that [the defendant] said 'something bad' about [the plaintiff] to a client fail[s] to afford [the defendant] sufficient notice of the communications complained of") (internal quotation omitted); see also Sebastiani v. Brooklyn Hospital Ctr., No. 19-cv-253, 2019 WL 3281010 , *4 (E.D.N.Y.

Grp., 181 F.3d at 267; West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, 167 F.3d at 779 .

Ke, 595 F. Supp. 2d at 262 (citing Reilly v. NatWest Markets Group, Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 265 (2d Cir. 1999)); Ting Yao Lin v. Hayashi Ya II, Inc., No. 08-CV- 6071, 2009 WL 289653 , at *7 (S.D.N.Y.

The corporation is obligated to make a good faith effort to prepare the representative witness to be able to “answer fully, completely, [and] unevasively the questions posed . . . as to the relevant subject matters.” S.E.C. v. Morelli, 143 F.R.D. 42, 45 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (internal quotations omitted; ellipsis in original) (citing cases); see also Reilly, 181 F.3d at 268 (“[T]he corporate deponent has an affirmative duty to make available such number of persons as will be able t…

Inc., 181 F.3d 253 , 267 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Whether exercising its inherent power, or acting pursuant to Rule 37, a district court has wide discretion in sanctioning a party for discovery abuses.”).

“When a party fails to comply with Rule 30(b)(6), Rule 37 allows courts to impose various sanctions . . . .” Reilly, 181 F.3d at 268.

Furthermore, the “Court has wide discretion to impose sanctions and determine the type of sanction to be imposed under Rule 37(b).” Jd. (citing See Reilly v. NatWest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 267 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1119 , 120 S. Ct. 940 , 145 L.

Jan. 18, 2011). “[T]rial judges have wide discretion to impose sanctions for spoliation even in cases not involving ‘outrageous culpability.’” Matteo v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 533 F. App’x 1, 3 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Reilly, 181 F.3d at 267-68).

Inc., 181 F.3d 253 , 268 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Under Rule 30(b)(6), when a party seeking to depose a corporation announces the subject matter of the proposed deposition, the corporation must produce someone familiar with that subject.”).

But that case law cannot save Lee from forfeiture of the unvested portions of any of the funds covered by the MOU because, under the Labor Law, “incentive pay does not constitute a ‘wage’ until it is actually earned and vested.” Reilly, 181 F.3d at 264 (emphasis added); see Lee Mem. 16.4 By contrast, the latter argument — that the MOU fails for lack of consideration — cannot be resolved at this stage.

Appx. 941, 945 (11th Cir. 2005); Reilly v. NatWest Markets Group Inc., 181 F3d 253, 266 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Fuesting, 845 F2d 664, 673 (7th Cir. 1988).

Inc., 181 F.3d 253 , 268-69 (2d Cir. 1999) (“[T]he corporate deponent has an affirmative duty to make available ‘such number of persons as will’ be able ‘to give complete, knowledgeable and binding answers’ on its behalf.”).

Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 268 (2d Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1119 , 120 S.Ct. 940 , 145 L.Ed.2d 818 (2000); Gordon v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., 935 F.Supp.2d 306, 315 (D.Mass.2013).

Companies, 397 F.3d 120 , 124 (2d Cir.2005) (quoting Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group, Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 271 (2d Cir.1999)).

Inc., 181 F.3d 253 , 267 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Whether exercising its inherent power, or acting pursuant to Rule 37, a district court has wide discretion in sanctioning a party for discovery abuses____”).