Folk

7/15/202 6 2:20 pm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. DISTRICT COURT

X EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LYNDA J. FOLK, LONG ISLAND OFFICE

Plaintiff,

ORDER

-against- 23-CV-09400 (SJB)(JMW)

LOUIS DEJOY, as Postmaster General for the

United States Postal Service,

Defendant.

X

A P P E A R A N C E S:

Lynda J. Folk

1045 East Street, Apt #209

Fort Atkinson, WI 53538

Pro Se Plaintiff

Robert W. Schumacher, II, Esq.

U.S. Attorney’s Office, E.D.N.Y.

610 Federal Plaza

Central Islip, NY 11722

Attorney for Defendant

WICKS, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff alleges claims of employment discrimination/hostile work environment in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.

(the “ADEA”) arising from Plaintiff’s termination from her employment with the Postal Service

in 2019. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of documents.

(ECF No. 48.)

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

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.’” Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., No. 11-CV-5088 (RMB)(HBP), 2016 WL 616386, at

*11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401). Moreover, “[t]he party seeking the

discovery must make a prima facie showing that the discovery sought is more than merely a

fishing expedition.” Evans v. Calise, No. 92-CV-8430 (PLK), 1994 WL 185696, at *1

(S.D.N.Y. May 12, 1994). To that end, the discovery sought by the parties must be, as stated by

Rule 26, proportional to the needs of the case, taking into consideration such aspects as 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. Sibley v. Choice Hotels Int’l, No. 14-CV-634 (JS)(AYS), 2015 WL 9413101, at *2–3

(E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2015).

“Rule 26 has defined the scope of discovery to consist of information that is relevant to

the parties’ ‘claims and defenses.’” Pothen v. Stony Brook Univ., No. 13-CV-6170 (JFB)(AYS),

2017 WL 1025856, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2017). “Thus, the discretionary authority to allow

discovery of ‘any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action’ has been

eliminated,” and permissible discovery under Rule 26 must be relevant “to any party’s claim or

defense,” and that means “proportional to the needs of the case.” Id. at *3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1)). Proportionality goes “hand-in-hand” with relevance. New Falls Corp. v. Soni, No.

16-CV-6805 (ADS)(AKT), 2020 WL 2836787, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2020). That is, the

more relevant the information sought is, the less likely the Court would find the subject

discovery disproportionate. Id.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff served upon Defendant a request for production of all materials related to a

certain investigation in or around 2022–23 “at the Bayport Post Office.” (ECF No. 48 at 1.)

According to Plaintiff, that investigation “addressed the same workplace and the same

managers” involved in the alleged acts that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims here, and it “resulted in

the removal of two abusive managers from the Bayport facility.” (Id.) The materials sought are

therefore relevant, according to Plaintiff, in that the investigation “confirmed a continuing

pattern of abusive conduct at Bayport.” (Id.)

Defendant opposes the request, arguing that “the information requested has no relevance

to Plaintiff’s instant claims.” (ECF No. 50 at 1.) Defendant emphasizes that Plaintiff is seeking

information about “a workplace complaint lodged by a different employee (Ms. Whitehead)

approximately four years (2022-23) after Plaintiff’s termination from a position she held for two

months (in 2019).” (Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).) Moreover, the complainant there held the

position of “clerk,” whereas Plaintiff was a letter carrier. (Id.) At bottom, Defendant maintains

that “evidence to support Plaintiff’s claims cannot be derived from documents regarding

allegations of workplace discrimination raised by a different employee, who held a different

position, approximately four years after Plaintiff’s termination.” (Id.)

In reply, Plaintiff clarifies that the 2022–23 investigation “addressed allegations of

abusive conduct by the identical managers who supervised Plaintiff and participated in the

decisions regarding her employment.” (ECF No. 51 at 1 (emphasis in original).) As such,

Plaintiff maintains that the discovery sought is probative of “whether the conduct was severe and

pervasive,” among other things. (Id.)1

1 Plaintiff also emphasizes that the 2022–23 investigation took place simultaneously with Plaintiff’s

“grievance process” in this case. (ECF No. 51 at 1–2; see also ECF No. 48.) That is irrelevant. The fact

As a general matter, Plaintiff is correct that subsequent allegations of discrimination can

under certain circumstances be relevant. See Browne v. New York State Dep’t of Corr. & Cmty.

Supervision, No. 21-CV-05240 (PMH), 2024 WL 917610, at *8–9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2024),

aff’d, No. 24-734, 2025 WL 1177958 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2025). For example, in McConkey v.

Churchill Sch. & Ctr., the court compelled production of documents “regarding complaints about

discrimination on the basis of age, gender or sexual orientation or retaliation[.]” No. 24-CV-

06091 (LJL), 2025 WL 3281442, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025). At the same time, the court

made clear that the plaintiff was not entitled to discovery into other forms of discrimination, as

such matters would be too far afield and thus fail Rule 26’s proportionality requirement. Id. at

n.1.

Here, Plaintiff does not specify that the 2022–23 investigation involved age-related

discrimination, or, for that matter, discrimination of any kind. She simply states that it “resulted

in the removal of the abusive managers from the facility.” (ECF No. 48 at 6.) Further, although

Plaintiff asserts that the investigation involved “the identical managers” at issue here (ECF No.

51 at 1 (emphasis removed)), her motion is conspicuously silent as to who they are. The

Complaint focuses on misconduct by Guy Turchiano and Jennifer Carolla. (See generally ECF

No. 1.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel does not specify whether these were the same “two abusive

managers” who were allegedly removed as a result of the 2022–23 investigation. (ECF No. 48 at

1.) Notwithstanding the special solicitude due to Plaintiff on account of her pro se status, it is

not the Court’s job to guess about a core element of her motion, namely, relevance.

that Plaintiff’s grievance process and litigation were ongoing during the later investigation does not mean

that the later investigation sheds light on the state of affairs during 2019, which is when the events giving

rise to this litigation took place.

Regardless, even if the 2022–23 investigation did involve allegations against Turchiano

and Carolla for age-based discrimination, it would still be too far removed in time. Even where

permitting discovery into subsequent allegations of discrimination, courts consistently impose

temporal limits. The more time that passes between the events giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim

and the subsequent allegations, the more burden rises while probative value falls. Hence, in

Solomon v. Fordham Univ., the court compelled production of alleged comparators’ personnel

files, “but only for the two-year period” following the events giving rise to the lawsuit. No. 18-

CV-4615 (ER), 2026 WL 861451, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2026). And in Lively v. Wayfarer

Studios LLC the court was even more restrained, granting post-dated discovery of only a few

months. No. 24-CV-10049 (LJL), 2025 WL 2463633, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2025)

(compelling production of documents about “other individuals’ complaints of harassment[ or]

discrimination” through February 18, 2025, where the initial Civil Rights Department complaint

was filed December 20, 2024).

Here, Plaintiff began working for Defendant in July 2019 and was terminated in

September 2019. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 9, 56.) The subsequent investigation began no earlier than

January 2022. (ECF No. 51 at 1.) While that is not quite a gap of “approximately four years” as

Defendant contends (ECF No. 50 at 2), it is still a long time. On balance, the Court finds that the

burden to Defendant in producing the requested documents—which include “the full

investigative report,” “all witness statements and affidavits,” “interview notes,” and more (ECF

No. 48 at 2)—would outweigh the documents’ marginal probative value. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.

Finally, because the Court declines to compel Defendant to produce the requested

documents, there is also no reason to extend the discovery deadline as Plaintiff requests (see ECF

No. 48 at 2). All previously ordered dates and deadlines remain in place.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 48) is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed

to serve copies of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular mail and email.

Dated: Central Islip, New York

July 15, 2026

S O O R D E R E D:

James M. Wicks

/s/

JAMES M. WICKS

United States Magistrate Judge