Order | Filed: September 02, 2026
| Entered: September 02, 2026
Cyrus v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
Order on Motion to Compel
ORDER: On 2/3/2026, the Court held a status conference, at which the Court directed the parties to meet and confer to finalize an agreed-upon protocol governing the exchange of Electronically Stored Information ("ESI"). On 3/13/2026, Defendants filed a letter, advising the Court that the parties have been unable to agree on a proposed ESI protocol and attaching the parties' respective redlines. Defs. Letter, ECF 289 . On 3/26/2026, Plaintiff responded with a letter and later, on 5/8/2026, moved to compel the production of documents and ESI. Pl. Letter, ECF 290 ; Mot. to Compel, ECF 292 . On 5/21/2026, the Court directed Defendants to submit a substantive opposition to Plaintiff's motion, and advised the parties that following the parties' briefing, the Court may so-order an ESI protocol, incorporating aspects of each party's proposal. 5/21/2026 ECF Order.
Having considered the parties' filings, the Court enters the attached ESI Protocol, governing the exchange of ESI in this case, in the exercise of its "wide discretion" to handle pre-trial discovery. In re DG Acquisition Corp., 151 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1998) (quotation marks omitted). A signed copy of the ESI Protocol is attached to this order.
To the extent that Plaintiff's proposed protocol would require "Defendants [to] identify with specificity" information regarding litigation holds and/or identify the retention policies associated with ESI repositories, Plaintiff is advised that this type of disclosure is not properly the subject of an ESI protocol. Pl. Draft Protocol, ECF 289-2, at ECF pp. 3-4. Plaintiff may request discovery as to this information in the context of a request for production or inspection or an interrogatory, subject to Defendants' appropriate and good-faith objections. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the attached order shall be interpreted to require parties, custodians, or vendors to produce documentation regarding their search methodology in the first instance. See id., at ECF pp. 5-6.
Finally, as discussed on the record in the 2/3/2026 Status Conference, upon an appropriate request for production, subject to appropriate and good-faith objections, Plaintiff must search her personal email inboxes in accordance with the ESI protocol and produce responsive ESI; information pertaining to her efforts to mitigate her damages stemming from her allegedly retaliatory termination is unquestionably relevant to her claims and defenses in this action. See Dailey v. Societe Generale, 108 F.3d 451, 455 (2d Cir. 1997). That said, in light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court denies Defendants' request to require Plaintiff to produce a privilege log as to any redacted or withheld emails. Def. Draft Protocol, ECF 289-1, at 3; cf. Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that courts should "afford a special solicitude to pro se litigants; Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (explaining that pro se pleadings "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" (quotation marks omitted)).
The parties are directed to proceed with the exchange of fact discovery under the terms of the ESI protocol. Should any disputes arise about the scope of the parties' obligations under the ESI Protocol, the parties must meet and confer and file a joint letter describing the dispute and requesting an informal conference to resolve the dispute in accordance with the undersigned's individual rules. Any discovery-related motion that does not comply with the undersigned's individual rules will not be considered. See 2/3/2026 Min. Entry & Order (warning the parties of the same). Because the parties' compliance with the attached ESI Protocol will facilitate the production that Plaintiff seeks to compel, Plaintiff's motion 292 to compel is denied as moot. See id. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 9/2/2026. (MJM)