Crawford v. ExlService.com, LLC et al
| Mary F. Crawford |
| ExlService.com, LLC, ExlService Holdings, Inc., ExlService Inc., ExlService.com, Inc., William A. Bloom, Rohit Kapoor and Pavan Bagai |
| 1:2016cv09137 |
| November 23, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Loretta A. Preska |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
137
ORDER granting 130 Letter Motion for Discovery. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to reconsider its decision to permit Nancy Saltzman, Esq., former General Counsel of the corporate defendant, to testify at trial concerning, inter alia, h er personal knowledge concerning discriminatory conduct or practices during her tenure at EXL. Because Defendants have not proffered any facts or law which the Court overlooked in making its determination (but instead merely rehash their prior argume nts,) the motion [dkt. no. 128] is denied. With respect to Plaintiff's motion to quash Defendants' November 26, 2019 deposition subpoena to Ms. Saltzman [dkt. no. 130], that motion is granted. As pointed out in Plaintiff's counsel' ;s November 26 letter, Defendants have long been on notice of Plaintiff's position that Ms. Saltzman had information about Defendants' alleged discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. Instead of taking her deposition during the period of fact discovery, Defendants apparently decided to move to preclude her as a witness instead. Having lost that motion, Defendants now seek to burden everyone involved by seeking Ms. Saltzman's deposition on three days' notice for the day aft er Thanksgiving and the Friday before the Monday trial. All of this is too late. Defendants have made their bed and now they have to lie in it. Accordingly, the motion to quash the subpoena [dkt. no. 130] is granted. For the same reasons, Defendants& #039; request to call "at least" the seven witnesses listed in their November 26 letter [dkt. no. 128] to testify in response to Ms. Saltzman's testimony is denied. For the same reasons, Defendants' request to adjourn the trial date [dkt. no. 128] is also denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 11/27/2019) (mml)
|
|
Filing
126
ORDER: The Court agrees with Defendants that evidence regarding Ms. Saltzman's pending lawsuit against Defendants is inadmissible. As noted above, Ms. Saltzman may testify as to her knowledge of Defendants' discriminatory conduct, but the probative value of evidence showing that she, too, has filed a lawsuit is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues and unfairly prejudicing Defendants. See Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also, e.g., Figueroa v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 00 Civ. 7922, 2003 WL 21488012, at *4 (granting motion to preclude evidence as to the existence of other lawsuits). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 11/25/2019) (mml)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiff's letter dated November 21, 2019 [dkt. no. 121] requesting clarification of the Court's order dated November 21, 2019 [dkt. no. 120]. The Court orders that Mr. Dhananjav Khana may testify as to his own personal knowledge, but not on any Rule 30(b) (6) topics. The Court further orders that, as stated in its prior ruling dated November 14, 2019 [dkt. no. 99], Mr. Shivkumar's deposition testimony may be used at trial in light of his unavailability. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 11/22/2019) (mml)
|
|
Filing
120
ORDER: At the final pretrial conference held on November 20, it was ordered that: 1) Because of the lack of notice of videotaping, the video portion of Plaintiff's deposition may not be played. 2) The 10-Ks and stock tables relating to the Defen dant company may be received. 3) Because of defense counsel's wholesale designations of deposition testimony for Plaintiff and Mr. Minocha, Defendants' designations are stricken. Defendants may redesignate properly no later than Friday, Nov ember 22. 4) As agreed by the parties, there will be no mention of the availability of insurance. 5) Evidence of the compensation history of Messrs. Bloom, Bagai, and Kapoor will be received. 6) Messrs, Jetley, Rai, Vachani, Shivjumar, Miglani, and M inocha will appear as live witnesses for the Defendants. In order to avoid their having to appear twice, Plaintiff need not call them in her direct case but will be permitted to elicit testimony for her case as part of those witnesses' cross e xamination. Defendants may make their Rule 50 motion at the end of the defense case. 7) Trial will be bifurcated only as to punitive damages. If the jurors indicate that they are inclined to award punitive damages, evidence will then be received on that topic. The request to bifurcate liability and damages is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 11/21/2019) (mml)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Crawford's retaliation claims and otherwise DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the open motion [dkt. no. 53]. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 11/12/2019) (mml)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
