MacCartney, Jr. v. O'Dell et al, No. 7:2014cv03925 - Document 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER. The Court after reviewing the factual record in this case, including the parties' pleadings and accompanying exhibits, as well as MJ Davison's July Decision and the applicable legal authorities, concludes that the findin gs and reasoning provided are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Defendants' request to set aside the July Decision. Accordingly, the Order is affirmed and Defendants' objections (ECF No. 101) are denied. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 10/16/18) (yv)

Download PDF
MacCartney, Jr. v. O'Dell et al Doc. 161 Dockets.Justia.com may be entitled to a share of the fees, if any, generated by O'Dell on cases he worked on during his tenure atMMKM. It is well settled that a district court has broad latitude to determine the scope of discovery and to manage the discovery process. EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 207 (2d Cir. 2012), affd sub nom. Republic ofArgentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 134 S. Ct. 2250(2014) (internal citations omitted) Discovery is relevant if there is a possibility that the information sought may be material to a "party's claim"(Maresco, 964 F.2d at 114). This Court finds that MJ Davison's ruling is neither erroneous, overly broad nor contrary to prevailing law. Given Plaintiff's allegations and claims, it is the Comi's determination that the information sought, discovery concerning cases O'Dell may have worked on while an associate at MMKM, is relevant. That includes cases that he may have brought with him prior to joining MMKM in September 2008. The relevant inquiry is whether he was providing legal services on any case(s) while a salaried employee of MMKM, utilizing firm resources, and whether MMKM is entitled to any share of the proceeds O'Dell may have received for his labor. Consistent with MJ Davison's ruling, the O'Dell Defendants need not turn over any privileged materials or communications. CONCLUSION The Court after reviewing the factual record in this case, including the parties' pleadings and accompanying exhibits, as well as MJ Davison's July Decision and the applicable legal authorities, concludes that the findings and reasoning provided are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Defendants' request to set aside the July Decision. Accordingly, the Order is affirmed and Defendants' objections (ECF No. 101) are denied. October 16, 2018 White Plains, New York SO ORDERED: Judge Nelson S. Roman U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.