RONALD FRIEDRICH FUNKE v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION (2025)

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Ronald Funke and A.F., a minor (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendant JetBlue Airways Corporation (“Defendant” or “Jetblue”), alleging (i) race discrimination in performance of a contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, (ii) violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), (iii) violation of the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), and (iv) defamation, in connection with certain events that took place on an international flight from John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”) to Aruba. Dkt. No. 7. Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion seeking to compel passenger information and contact details of those near to, and present for, the underlying allegations in this action. Dkt. No. 23 at 1-2.¹ Defendant opposes Plaintiffs’ request. Id. at 3-4.

For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion.²

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Mr. Funke describes himself as a “Caucasian[ ] male” who was sixty-nine years old at the time of the incident. See Dkt. No. 7 at ¶ 4. According to the amended complaint, Mr. Funke's wife, Nancy Funke, “is an American-born Chinese.” Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiffs represent that A.F. is “the biological child” of Mr. and Mrs. Funke; A.F. “was fourteen years old” at the time of the incident and “is a member of a racial minority, a Eurasian.” Id. at ¶¶ 6-8. Plaintiffs state that they each “exhibit an obvious and visible racial difference from one another.” Id. at ¶ 18.

On June 25, 2024, Mr. Funke and A.F. flew from JFK to Aruba for a family vacation on JetBlue Flight No. B6-557. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2. Mr. Funke purchased both his ticket and A.F.’s ticket from Defendant. Id. at ¶ 14. According to the amended complaint, “Plaintiff A.F.’s ticket was issued in the same last name and was a round trip ticket bought using A.F.’s U.S. passport.” Id. at ¶ 15. Mr. Funke claims that he is “is a long standing ‘Full Mosiac’ member,” which he alleges is a JetBlue “customer loyalty program operated by [D]efendant.” Id. at ¶ 17. Mr. Funke further claims that he has flown on JetBlue flights “for many years and with Plaintiff A.F. since she was an infant.” Id.

Plaintiffs contend that they “boarded their flight without incident, showing their passports and tickets as they did so” and proceeded to take their seats “at the very front of the cabin near the cabin crew station.” Id. at ¶¶ 19, 21. During the flight, when Mr. Funke was in the lavatory, “a female cabin crew attendant” approached A.F. and asked “whether she was ‘okay,’ to which A.F. replied that she was.” Id. at ¶ 22.

When the flight arrived in Aruba, Plaintiffs “were the first to disembark.” Id. As they stepped out of the aircraft, Plaintiffs “noticed there were four men standing in the exit tunnel leading from the aircraft to the terminal, who turned out to be two Aruban police officers, a Dutch police officer[,] and a U.S. immigration official.” Id. at ¶ 24. As Plaintiffs passed the officers, they heard an unidentified voice from the airplane cabin call out, “that's them.” Id. at ¶ 25. Plaintiffs allege that they “were then then detained in the tunnel, separated from one another[,] and interrogated aggressively in the tunnel and terminal in full view and hearing of all other disembarking passengers.” Id. The officers purportedly seized Plaintiffs’ passports, and allegedly accused Mr. Funke of “illegally trafficking his own biological child” Id. at ¶¶ at 26-27.

After approximately fifteen minutes, Plaintiffs “were given back their passports and allowed to proceed to collect their baggage.” Id. at ¶ 28. While waiting to retrieve their baggage, other passengers on the flight allegedly “stared at [the family] and pointed them out.” Id. at ¶ 29. The whole ordeal purportedly caused Plaintiffs “embarrassment, humiliation, emotional pain, and suffering.” Id.

Plaintiffs believe that “one or more of [D]efendant's crew had communicated from the aircraft with the ground authorities either in the United States, Aruba[,] or both and made, on information and belief, a report of criminal conduct by [Mr. Funke], namely the trafficking of [A.F].” Id. at ¶ 30. Plaintiffs believe that the basis for the alleged conduct by Defendant's agents on the flight was the racial, gender, and age differences amongst the Plaintiffs. Id. at ¶¶ 32-36.

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed the instant action on December 4, 2024, alleging (i) race discrimination in performance of contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, (ii) violation of the NYSHRL, (iii) violation of the NYCHRL, and (iv) defamation for the events on the flight. See generally Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Id. at 14. On December 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. See generally Dkt. No. 7.

After an initial conference was held, the Court ordered that all discovery was to be completed by September 17, 2025. Discovery proceeded without issue from the parties until June 2, 2025.

C. The Discovery Dispute

On June 2, 2025, the parties filed a joint letter advising the Court as to a discovery dispute. Dkt. No. 23.

Plaintiffs contend that on April 13, 2025, they sought “discovery of the contact details for the other passengers sitting near the plaintiffs on the aircraft operated by defendant on the material date,” which they “requested because obviously Plaintiffs wish to interview these potential witnesses and possibly depose them, depending on what they can say.” Id. at 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs requested:

The names, addresses and contact details of other passengers on the same flight who either sat in the same row as plaintiffs on the other side of the cabin, and those passengers who sat in the row immediately behind the plaintiffs, also on either side of the cabin.

Id.

The relevant passengers, Plaintiffs allege, are not employees of Defendant or clients of Defendant's counsel, nor is their information and contact details “protected by any other litigation privilege or rule of confidentiality.” Id. at 1-2. Because the information is presumably readily available to Defendant, Plaintiffs assert that compliance would not be burdensome. Id. at 2. Moreover, because the request is restricted to those passengers in the same row and those immediately behind Plaintiffs’ seats, the request is not overly broad. Id.

Defendant refused to provide the requested discovery, objecting on the grounds that the request was “overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, and [was] not proportional to the case.” Id. Defendant argue that the request invades the privacy of the passengers “in an expansive and unwarranted manner,” which is disproportionate to the needs of the case in light of “no evidence of any passenger reporting a complaint to the flight crew, nor any report suggesting that any other passenger played any role in the alleged events.” Id. at 3.

Defendant further expounds upon the privacy argument, claiming that it pertains to “inherently private and confidential personal contact information of uninvolved third parties” and thus would be “an unwarranted and unnecessary invasion of privacy, especially where these individuals have no connection to the claims or defenses asserted in this action.” Id. Defendant continues that involving the individuals would “needlessly draw additional public attention to the issues in this case, increasing the risk of reputational harm and undue publicity,” which Plaintiffs seek to avoid. Id.

II. Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits parties to obtain nonprivileged information that it is relevant to “any party's claim or defense and is proportional to the needs of the case.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Trooper 1 v. New York State Police, No. 22-CV-893 (LDH) (TAM), 2024 WL 165159, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2024) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), as amended on December 1, 2015, recognizes that ‘[i]nformation is discoverable ․ if it is relevant to any party's claim or defense and is proportional to the needs of the case’ ” (internal citations omitted)); Sanders v. SUNY Downstate Med. Ctr., No. 22-CV-4139 (KAM) (CLP), 2024 WL 4198355, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2024) (same); Pincus L. Grp., PLLC v. MJ Connections, Inc., No. 23-CV-05528 (SJB) (JMW), 2025 WL 1070384, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2025) (same).

“Information is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc. v. MultiPlan, Inc., 325 F.R.D. 36, 47 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (citing Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., No. 11-CV-5088 (RMB) (HBP), 2016 WL 616386, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2016)). “Relevance is a matter of degree, and the standard is applied more liberally in discovery than it is at trial.” “Relevance is a matter of degree, and the standard is applied more liberally in discovery than it is at trial.” Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Khaim, No. 24-CV-4259 (NCM) (JAM), 2025 WL 1151412, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2025) (citations omitted).

Following its 2015 amendment, the proportionality requirement of Rule 26 “has taken on heightened significance in discovery.” Elisa W. ex rel. Barricelli v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-5273 (LTS) (HBP), 2018 WL 6695278, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2018); N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Sys., 325 F.R.D. at 47-48 (“Thus, Rule 26(b)(1), as amended, although not fundamentally different in scope from the previous version ‘constitute[s] a reemphasis on the importance of proportionality in discovery but not a substantive change in the law’ ” (quoting Vaigasi, 2016 WL 616386, at *13)). Whether discovery is proportional to the needs of the case considers “the marginal utility of the discovery sought,” Soni, 2020 WL 2836787, at *2, taking into consideration “the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources and access to the information sought, and the importance of the information sought to the asserted claims or defenses.” In re Exactech Polyethylene Orthopedic Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 22-MD-3044 (NGG) (MMH), 2024 WL 4381076, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2024). Proportionality and relevancy are assessed together, and “the greater the relevance of the information in issue, the less likely its discovery will be found to be disproportionate.” Vaigasi, 2016 WL 616386, at *14; see also Soni, 2020 WL 2836787, at *2.

Additionally, the Court is required to limit “the frequency or extent of discovery” under Rule 26(b)(2)(C) if it finds that the relevant discovery is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative”; if “the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action”; or if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii). “Although a ‘party must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to establish the facts necessary to support his claim,’ a ‘district court has wide latitude to determine the scope of discovery.’ ” In re Commodity Exch., Inc., Gold Futures & Options Trading Litig., No. 14-MC-2548 (VEC), 2021 WL 2481835, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2021) (quoting In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76, 103 (2d Cir. 2008)).

III. Discussion

Here, the requested discovery is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Information procured from nearby flight passengers may bear directly on the merits of Plaintiffs’ causes of action in the amended complaint. See, e.g., Kallas v. Carnival Corp., No. 06-CV-20115, 2007 WL 2819385, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2007) (finding, in a case in which the plaintiffs alleged that they ingested food and beverages “tainted with Norovirus,” that the “names of other persons who were on the cruise at issue and reported gastrointestinal illness are relevant, as those persons may be, at the very least, important witnesses in this case.”); Nathaniel v. Am. Airlines, No. 07-CV-0033, 2008 WL 5046848, at *5 (D.V.I. Nov. 20, 2008) (ordering disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(A) of a defendant airline's passenger manifest accompanied by a protective order so that plaintiff “can obtain the names and addresses of persons who may have witnessed the incident in question, and, at the same time, protect the privacy interests of persons involved is appropriate in this case”). These passengers are potential witnesses in this case and are likely to have discoverable information. Cf. Rivera v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., No. 96-CV-5338 (ILG) (JMA), 1998 WL 273026, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 1998) (ordering production of the names of flight attendants who may have been witnesses to alleged discrimination aboard a flight).

Further, the requested discovery is proportional to the needs of this case. Plaintiffs do not seek every passenger's contact information; rather, Plaintiffs seek only the contact information of those in the immediate vicinity of where the alleged interaction occurred. See Lane v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 18-CV-6110 (MKB) (CLP), 2021 WL 9182912, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2021) (recognizing that the defendant provided the name of all passengers who boarded a plane near the alleged assailant “in its possession” and rejecting a request to provide all the plane's passengers’ addresses and phone numbers); Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, No. 24-CV-10049 (LJL), 2025 WL 662896, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2025) (noting that the “complaint already identifies many individuals who allegedly participated in a negative media campaign,” and the plaintiff “may make discovery requests tailored to those individuals[;] She is permitted to use the tools of discovery to identify the contact information or telephone numbers for those individuals.”).

The Court notes that it is not ordering Defendant to produce any information that is not in its possession, as the Court understands that “some passengers purchase tickets through third parties” and Defendant may not be able to access such data. Lane, 2021 WL 9182912, at *2. Further, although Defendant does not raise or cite to any federal law precluding the production of the requested information, the Court acknowledges that some or all of the information sought may be deemed confidential under federal law. See Jakobot v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 10-CV-61576, 2011 WL 13214326, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2011). Nonetheless, “[c]ourts have allowed discovery of passenger manifests pursuant to a confidentiality agreement.” Id. at *2 (“while recognizing the protection provided by federal law to the release of information contained in Defendant's passenger manifest, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has no other means of obtaining this information and that it is discoverable under a protective order.”); Wallman v. Tower Air, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 566, 569 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (ordering the defendant airline to produce its passenger list subject to a protective order). The produced information must therefore be accompanied by a protective confidentiality order.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion.

The parties shall file a proposed confidentiality order for the Court's endorsement by June 20, 2025.

Subject to a Court-ordered confidentiality order, Defendants shall produce the names, addresses, and contact information of the passengers on Plaintiffs’ June 25, 2024 flight “that either sat in the same row as Plaintiffs on the other side of the cabin,” or “who sat in the row immediately behind the plaintiffs, also on either side of the cabin” (Dkt. No. 23 at 1), by June 27, 2025.

The deadline for the parties to file a joint status report is extended until July 1, 2025.

SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Page citations are to the ECF-stamped page numbers.

2.   Anna Sargeantson, a judicial intern who is a second-year law student at Washington University School of Law, is gratefully acknowledged for her assistance in the research of this Opinion and Order.

JOSEPH A. MARUTOLLO United States Magistrate Judge