United States District Court, S.D. New York
November 4, 2005.
JUANA SIERRA TREJO, et al., Plaintiffs,
BROADWAY PLAZA HOTEL, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: DOUGLAS EATON, Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The attorneys' joint letter dated October 12, 2005 was received
by me via fax on October 24 and by mail on October 26. Neither
copy had any signature on the three signature lines. On October
26, my law clerk told Mr. Sturm's office that I need the three
signatures. I have still not received them, but I have decided to
rule on the letter without further delay.
I rule that Plaintiffs' Position sets forth an entirely
reasonable proposal for an in camera inspection of the 21
withheld pages of Ms. Sierra Trejo's personal notebook. The
defendants should realize that, even if I find that some withheld
material is relevant and not privileged, I must still limit the
discovery if I determine that "the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit,. . . ." Rule
26(b)(2)(iii), Fed.R.Civ.P. "This power, moreover, may be
employed where the burden is not measured in the time or expense
. . ., but lies instead in the adverse consequences of the
disclosure of sensitive, albeit unprivileged, material." Johnson
v. Nyack Hospital, 169 F.R.D. 550, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Kaplan,
If I uphold plaintiffs' redactions, then defendants must,
within five business days, reimburse plaintiffs for the expense
of the translator. If defendants do not, by November 10, 2005,
serve written confirmation that they will abide by those ground
rules, then I will deem that they have withdrawn this document
request. If they do serve a timely confirmation, then plaintiffs must submit the translation to me in camera within ten business
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.