Richmond v. General Nutrition Centers


New York Law Journal

   | 0 Comments    | SEE FULL TEXT OPINION

Judge Paul Engelmayer

Richmond and Hattimore were among plaintiffs charging General Nutrition Centers (GNC) with bias and retaliation. Plaintiffs had repeated discovery failures. A prior order reserved judgment as to back pay damages for Richmond and Hattimore for 2006 and 2007. GNC's letter disputing complete production of Richmond's and Hattimore's tax returns for 2006 and 2007 specified that Hattimore's "returns" were draft documents prepared by H&R Block, and that Richmond's returns lacked schedules revealing business income from Cream Malibu Inc. The court precluded Richmond and Hattimore's pursuit of back pay damages for 2006 and 2007. They did not comply with an order to produce Hattimore's actual 2006 and 2007 tax returns as filed with the IRS, and all schedules and attachments to Richmond's tax returns showing all of his income or income offsets. Specifically, Richmond did not provide Schedules K-1 for 2006 and 2007, despite tax returns for those years clearly reflecting that a figure on those returns is derived form a Schedule K-1. GNC had a right to use the Cream Malibu K-1s and discovery therefrom, to test if Richmond had income from 2007 that could have served as an offset to any back pay award received at trial.

Welcome to ALM. You have read 0 out of 0 free articles this month

Get 2 months of unlimited access FREE

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202554418649

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.