Stephanie Fitch, Plaintiff, v. NORRIS PEARSON BRIAN WILLIAMS KATHARINE DORAN MICHAEL HAMEL CHRISTOPHER LOSZYNSKI (2026)

In this action for employment discrimination, Plaintiff Stephanie Fitch ("Plaintiff") moves pursuant to sections 3124 and 3126 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") for an order compelling Defendants Brian Williams, Katharine Doran, Michael Hamel, and Christopher Loszynski ("Board Defendants") to produce certain documents pursuant to Request for Production No. 15 of Plaintiff's First Demand for Production of Documents ("Request No. 15"), which was previously served only on Defendants Norris Pearson ("Defendant Pearson") and Rensselaer County Regional Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber of Commerce" or "Chamber") (all collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees incurred from prosecuting this motion.¹ All Defendants oppose. Upon the papers submitted and for the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part.

I. Facts and Procedural History

The facts as alleged in this employment discrimination action based on age and gender are summarized in the Court's November 7, 2025, Decision and Order granting Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint and add the Board Defendants (see Fitch v Rensselaer County Regional Chamber of Commerce, 87 Misc 3d 1235[A] [Sup Ct, Rensselaer County 2025]) ("Fitch I"). The Court thereafter addressed a motion to compel brought by Plaintiff with respect to certain employment records in a second Decision and Order, dated April 8, 2026 (see Fitch v Rensselaer County Regional Chamber of Commerce, 88 Misc 3d 1250[A] [Sup Ct, Rensselaer County 2026]) ("Fitch II").

Before the Board Defendants joined the action, Plaintiff served the Chamber of Commerce and Defendant Pearson with a First Demand for Production of Documents, dated April 21, 2025. Request No. 15 contained therein specifically sought "[a]ll documents relating to the Chamber's financial condition and performance between January 1, 2020[,] and October 26, 2023," including financial statements, budgets, audit reports, tax returns, and accounting records. In response, the Chamber of Commerce and Defendant Pearson served Plaintiff with Defendants' Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Document Demands, dated June 6, 2025, wherein they specifically objected to Request No. 15 as "overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague[,] and ambiguous," claiming that the request sought information that was "neither relevant to any party's claim or defense nor proportional to the needs of the case." The Chamber of Commerce and Defendant Pearson further objected to the request on the basis that Plaintiff was, in their view, seeking confidential information.

In a letter dated July 7, 2025, Plaintiff treated the response from Defendant Pearson and the Chamber as a complete refusal to produce documents responsive to Request No. 15, asserting that the financial condition of the Chamber of Commerce is relevant to whether Plaintiff was terminated due to the Chamber's budgetary constraints. In a subsequent letter dated July 25, 2025, Defendant Pearson and the Chamber reiterated that Request No. 15 was unduly burdensome, further claiming that neither the Chamber nor Defendant Pearson had asserted Plaintiff's termination was predicated on any budgetary constraints. The parties exchanged further letters and emails concerning Request No. 15. In their letter dated September 19, 2025, counsel for the Chamber and Defendant Pearson stated that "Plaintiff was terminated due to her insubordination, which is not related to the financial condition of the Chamber."

The Board Defendants, who are members of the Executive Committee, a subcommittee of the Board of Directors, were added to the action pursuant to the Court's decision in Fitch I. Plaintiff served a First Demand for Production of Documents on these new defendants, dated February 26, 2026, wherein she sought, inter alia, copies of budgets submitted by Plaintiff from January 1, 2020, to the present; documents concerning the financial condition of the Chamber and/or the Chamber's budget that were purportedly used to justify Plaintiff's termination; and documents reflecting the Board Defendants' understanding of why Plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff's request here did not specifically include some of the documents she previously requested from the Chamber and Defendant Pearson in Request No. 15 from April of 2025.

The Court subsequently decided Fitch II. There, Plaintiff did not seek relief pertaining to Request No. 15. Rather, Plaintiff sought documents relating to the hiring of employees from five years before Plaintiff's hire in 2000 to three years after Defendant Pearson was hired in 2023 (i.e., employment-related documents from 1995 to 2026). The information sought with respect to this demand consisted of job postings, applications, resumes, and other related materials. Plaintiff also sought information by way of interrogatories of every person employed by the Chamber since January 1, 2020. The information sought with respect to this demand consisted of, inter alia, names, contact information, job titles, dates of employment, age, gender, salary, and reasons for separating from the Chamber. The Court granted the request in part, to the extent of ordering Defendants to provide all requested discovery from January 1, 2020, to the date of the Order. The parties appeared for a conference after that decision wherein the Court directed counsel to either resolve all remaining discovery issues or file the appropriate motions.

Defendants produced certain board meeting minutes sometime in May of 2026, ranging from January of 2023 to February of 2026. In a lengthy email exchange occurring that month, counsel for Plaintiff requested financial documents referred to in those minutes, claiming they are relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff was "negligent" in preparing them. Opposing counsel, now representing all Defendants, countered that the "full actual documents" were not discoverable because the issue, from their perspective, is that there were instances beginning from the date Defendant Pearson was hired where Plaintiff failed to prepare said documents in a timely manner, and that, in any event, Defendants produced all communications addressing the alleged need to have the financial documents completed in a timely fashion. Later in that email exchange, counsel for Defendants offered to produce documents prepared by Plaintiff from the date Defendant Pearson was hired up until Plaintiff's termination, to the extent those documents relate to communications produced in the case. Counsel for Plaintiff rejected that limitation, demanding instead financial records dating back to January of 2020. Counsel for both sides conferred by telephone, letter, and email, to no avail. Plaintiff filed her second motion to compel discovery in this case. This decision follows.

II. The Parties' Arguments

In essence, Plaintiff seeks to obtain the financial documents requested from the Chamber and Defendant Pearson in Request No. 15 from all Defendants, including the Board Defendants, on the basis that Defendants have placed Plaintiff's preparation of the documents and their timeliness at issue in this case. Plaintiff seeks the production of these documents, ranging from budgets to accounting records, "to demonstrate the quality of her work product" and "rebut Defendants' characterization of her performance." Further, Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants respond that the motion is procedurally defective because Request No. 15 was served specifically only on the Chamber and Defendant Pearson. Defendants further maintain that Plaintiff was terminated for insubordination; that the issue relevant to this case is the timeliness of the preparation of the financial documents created by Plaintiff, rather than their contents or the Chamber's financial health; and that the broad demand for budgets, audits, tax returns, accounting records, and other documents is overbroad and confidential. Defendants highlight their prior offer to produce the financial statements prepared by Plaintiff from the date of Defendant Pearson's hire to the date of Plaintiff's termination (i.e., March of 2023 through the end of October of 2023). Defendants also seek costs and attorneys' fees.

In reply, Plaintiff acknowledges that Request No. 15 predated the joinder of the Board Defendants but nevertheless argues that the Court may direct disclosure from parties who possess or control relevant records.

III. Applicable Law and Analysis

CPLR 3101 (a) requires full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. Those terms are construed liberally to require disclosure of facts bearing on the controversy that will assist in preparing for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay (Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 38 [2014]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]). The party seeking disclosure must first demonstrate that the requested material is reasonably calculated to yield material and necessary information (Cooke v Greenhouse Hudson, LLC, 230 AD3d 841, 844 [3d Dept 2024]; Harmon v Diocese of Albany, 204 AD3d 1270, 1271 [3d Dept 2022]). Discovery is broad, but it is not unlimited, and the trial court has broad discretion to supervise disclosure and tailor an order to the issues presented (Forman v Henkin, 30 NY3d 656, 661-662, 665 [2018]; see Harman, 204 AD3d at 1271).

It is true that the demand served by Plaintiff on the Chamber and Defendant Pearson, as outlined in Request No. 15, differs in language from the demand she served on the Board Defendants upon their inclusion in the action. Nevertheless, the Court finds that at least some of the materials sought by Plaintiff are material and necessary for both the prosecution and defense of this action insofar as Defendants cite insubordination and timeliness as issues for Plaintiff's termination and Plaintiff is entitled to the documents she herself prepared for the Chamber to address the issue of her workplace performance. Given Plaintiff's stated purpose for the production of her own work product, however, the Court finds that documents concerning the Chamber's overall financial health that were not prepared by Plaintiff, whether they be audits, tax returns, or other similar documents not prepared by Plaintiff, are not relevant or material to the action and thus not discoverable, particularly where Defendants have represented that Plaintiff's termination was not related to the financial condition of the Chamber. Because Request No. 15 was served only on the Chamber and Defendant Pearson, the motion is denied insofar as it seeks to compel the Board Defendants to respond to that demand (see CPLR 3120 [1]; 3124).

To balance Plaintiff's need for discovery with Defendants' burden of production, the Court orders Defendant Pearson and the Chamber to produce the financial documents specifically prepared by Plaintiff as defined in Request No. 15 for the period of January 1, 2023, to October 31, 2023. This time period is narrower than the time period imposed in Fitch II because the issue of Plaintiff's performance appears to have become pertinent at around the time of Defendant Pearson's hire, and the board meeting minutes produced by Defendants begin in January of 2023. The time period which the Court now finds both relevant and material encompasses sometime before Defendant Pearson's hire and sometime after.

To the extent the documents to be produced contain confidential information, their disclosure and use shall be governed by the confidentiality provisions set forth in the decretal paragraph below.

Having found no evidence of willful and contumacious noncompliance with discovery in this case, the Court declines to impose sanctions on any of the parties. The Court has examined all remaining arguments and find them lacking in merit.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that Defendant Pearson and the Chamber shall, within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this Decision and Order, with notice of entry, produce financial documents as identified in Request No. 15 specifically prepared by Plaintiff, from January 1, 2023, through October 31, 2023; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant Pearson and the Chamber may, in good faith, designate as "confidential" any document produced pursuant to this Decision and Order, provided that documents so designated shall be used solely for purposes of this action and shall be disclosed only to Plaintiff, counsel for the parties and their staff, any retained experts, and the Court; and further provided that any party seeking to file a document so designated shall do so in accordance with 22 NYCRR 216.1; and further provided that upon conclusion of the action, Plaintiff shall return all hard copies of such documents to the producing party and destroy all copies, including electronic copies; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion is DENIED IN PART, to the extent Plaintiff seeks production of documents not prepared by her or prepared outside of the period beginning January 1, 2023, through October 31, 2023, and insofar as the motion seeks relief against the Board Defendants; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties' cross requests for sanctions, fees, and costs are DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties shall submit a status update via letter to the Court on or before November 30, 2026; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties shall ask the Court to schedule an in-person conference, to be held at the Rensselaer Supreme and County Courthouse in Troy, New York, prior to filing any more motions.

This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court, which shall be uploaded onto the New York State Court Electronic Filing ("NYSCEF") system for filing and entry by the Office of the County Clerk. The signing of this Decision and Order and uploading onto NYSCEF shall not constitute filing, entry, service, or notice of entry under CPLR 2220 and section 202.5-b (h) (2) of the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of those Rules with respect to filing, entry, service, and notice of entry of the original Decision and Order.

Dated: October 16, 2026

Troy, New York

Hon. Noel Mendez

Acting Justice of the Supreme Court

Papers Considered:

1. Notice of Motion, dated June 1, 2026 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 86);

2. Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support (NYSCEF Doc. No. 87);

3. Plaintiff's Affirmation of Good Faith and exhibits (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 88-97);

4. Defendants' Affirmation in Opposition and exhibits (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 98-101);

5. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law (NYSCEF Doc. No. 102); and

6. Reply Affirmation of Eileen N. Nadelson and exhibits (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 103-110).

FOOTNOTES

1.   Per their Reply Affirmation, Plaintiff no longer seeks to obtain a privilege log from Defendants.

Noel Mendez, J.