Flynn v. Cable News Network, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 4, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-02587·Unknown

Opinion

The telephonic conference scheduled for Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 11:00 am is ADJOURNED to Friday, October 28, 2022 at 12:00 pm (the "Conference"). At the Conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss (i) the discovery issues outlined in Defendants’ letter- motion dated September 26, 2022, (see ECF No. 72), (ii) Plaintiffs’ response dated October 1, 2022, (see ECF No. 75), and (iii) the issues 961.429.3619 outlined in Defendant's letter-motion dated October 4, 2022. (ECF October 4, 2022 No. 77). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 77. a Ya SO ORDERED 10/04/22 Avattl pe ing sts 2 ae Judge Re: — Flynn et al v. Cable News Network, No. 1:21-cv-02587 (S.D.N.Y.) — Request for Discovery Conference Dear Judge Cave: We are conflict counsel in this matter representing Defendant Cable News Network (“CNN”), in the above-referenced action with respect to the discovery of social media records. We submit this letter motion requesting a discovery conference or, in the alternative, an order compelling Plaintiffs John “Jack” Flynn and Leslie Flynn, subpoenaed non-parties General Michael Flynn, Michael Flynn, Jr., Joseph “Joe” Flynn, Mary Flynn O’Neill, and plaintiffs in a related Florida federal court action Valerie Flynn and Lori Flynn, all of whom are represented by Steven Biss (hereinafter referred to as “the Flynns”), to execute releases authorizing Twitter, Inc. to release responsive documents from the Flynns’ Twitter accounts, which are central to the case. The Flynns have, without justification, refused to provide the executed consent forms. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 37.2 and Part II.C of Your Honor’s Individual Practices, counsel for CNN has, since August 31, 2022, attempted to schedule a phone call or Zoom video conference with Mr. Biss to discuss his clients’ failure to execute the requested releases. Mr. Biss has steadfastly refused to schedule a meeting or otherwise discuss the issues. Specifically, counsel for CNN contacted Mr. Biss on August 31 to discuss the Twitter consent forms. Counsel followed up the next day and Mr. Biss indicated he was in trial, and the parties would need to confer the following week. Given Mr. Biss’ unavailability, and the upcoming holiday weekend, counsel tried to pin down a date for the meeting. Mr. Biss did not respond. Having failed to hear back, on September 6, counsel again followed up attempting to set up a call or video conference sometime during the week. Mr. Biss, again, ignored the requests. On September 9, counsel followed up via phone and email, indicating it was clear from Mr. Biss’ failure to even scheduling a meeting that he had no interest in conferring, and the parties had reached an impasse on the issue, thus requiring court intervention. However, because counsel believed the parties could truly benefit from a conferral, she offered two additional dates to confer in the following week. Mr. Biss responded that same date and indicated he would look at his calendar and “email [ | a few dates next week.” That email never came. On September 13, counsel inquired about Mr. Biss’ availability for one last time. To date, Mr. Biss has not responded and has refused to even schedule a meeting to discuss these issues.

Tampa | West Palm Beach | Jacksonville

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Flynn v. Cable News Network, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Flynn v. Cable News Network, Inc. (Flynn v. Cable News Network, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Romano v. Steelcase Inc.
30 Misc. 3d 426 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)