Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PASHA v. WILLIAM M. MERCER INVESTMENT CONSULTING

United States District Court, Southern District of New York


April 17, 2003

IQBAL A. PASHA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WILLIAM M. MERCER INVESTMENT CONSULTING, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert W. Sweet, United States District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

It has been difficult to track the letter submissions in lieu of motions by pro se plaintiff Iqbal A. Pasha ("Pasha") and his letter of February 7, 2003, treated as a motion returnable February 19, 2003, is one such.*fn1 It seeks to compel defendant William M. Mercer Investment Consulting, Inc. ("WMMICI") to comply with a discovery order requiring identification of investment consultants hired in the three years prior to the refusal of WMMICI to hire Pasha.

By memorandum opinion and order dated October 10, 2002 and October 11, 2002, WMMICI was ordered to provide "the names, ages and nationalit[ies]" of senior investment consultants hired between January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2000. On November 12, 2002, WMMICI sought to comply with that order but it withheld the names of the individual employees listed "pursuant to plaintiff's representation that he would accept such information with individuals' names redacted." The "representation" referred to was contained in Pasha's September 23, 2002 letter to the Court, in which he expressly stated: "[i]n order to assuage [defendant's] fears concerning privacy, I would not object if the full names of the individual employees are not disclosed on any lists provided to me."

By order of December 13, 2002, in response to Pasha's application, the period covered was expanded to three years and all investment consultants were covered. WMMICI compiled the requested information and on January 10, 2003, produced a second expanded list to Pasha, again with the individual employees' names withheld.

Pasha has alleged that the additional individuals listed "were not genuine `new hires' at all, but simply transfers from one city to another, who were treated as "new hires' in the second city."

WMMICI now represents that the lists compiled by defendant encompassed new hires only, and not relocated or transferred employees. No basis has been asserted to require the instant request for identification by name of any of the fifty individual, non-party employees with respect to whom WMMICI has provided information.

The application of Pasha is denied.

It is so ordered.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.