Allayeva v. NY Physical Therapy & Wellness, LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
LUBOV ALLAYEVA,
Plaintiff, 	ORDER
-against- 	CV 24-6898 (NJC)(AYS)
NY PHYSICAL THERAPY & WELLNESS, LLC,
NYPT MANAGEMENT LLC, ROBERT BRENNAN,
in his individual and official capacity, and RONALD
BREDOW, in his individual and official capacity,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
SHIELDS, Magistrate Judge:
This is an action commenced by Plaintiff, Lubov Allayeva (“Plaintiff”), against her
former employers, NY Physical Therapy & Wellness (“NYPT”), and its subsidiary, NYPT
Management LLC (“NYPT Management”) (collectively, the “Corporate Defendants” or the
“Company”). Plaintiff also named as defendants individual Defendants Robert Brennan
(“Brennan”) and Ronald Bredow (“Bredow”) (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”).
Brennan was the Corporate Defendants’ Chief Compliance Officer; Bredow was the Chief
Executive Officer. Each of the Individual Defendants are alleged to have had the authority to
hire, fire, or affect the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, and to have been decision
makers at the Company.
Plaintiff was employed as Defendants’ Practice Engagement Director. She alleges that
she earned a base compensation as well as commission. Her Amended Complaint, the presently
operative pleading, alleges gender discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Federal law under
Title VII, as well as parallel claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New
York City Administrative Code. In addition to seeking damages attributable to discrimination,
Case 2:24-cv-06898-NJC-AYS Document 53 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff seeks damages for unpaid commissions. These claims arise under the New York Labor
Law. (See generally Am. Compl., Docket Entry (“DE”) [30].)
Plaintiff’s Title VII claims are alleged against the Corporate Defendants. Her New York
State Human Rights Law claims, as well as those alleged under the New York City
Administrative Code, include the Individual Defendants. Also alleged against the Individual
Defendants are claims of aiding and abetting arising under State and City laws. Claims for failure
to timely pay commissions under the New York Labor Law are alleged against all Defendants.
As a practical matter, and considering the Amended Complaint as a whole, Plaintiff alleges
various claims of gender discrimination and unpaid commissions – in some legal form – against
all Defendants. It is thus clear that Defendants are alleged to be liable for both discrimination and
unpaid commissions. However, as to the discrimination claims, Plaintiff alleges factually specific
acts to support her claims of a discriminatory hostile environment and retaliation against the
Individual Defendants.
Shortly after filing the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff settled her claims against
Defendant Brennan. In connection therewith, Plaintiff and Brennan entered into a confidential
settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). The settled claims were dismissed, with
prejudice, by Order of the District Court dated March 3, 2025. While there is presently pending a
motion by Defendant Bredow to dismiss the commission-based claims, (DE [42]), discovery as
to all claims is proceeding. Indeed, even if Bredow’s motion to dismiss is granted, the
discrimination claims will, absent the grant of any pretrial dispositive motion, proceed to trial.
Fact discovery is set to close on January 6, 2026. Expert discovery will close on March 9,
2026. While Bredow recently submitted a motion to stay discovery – based upon his
representation that counsel for the Corporate Defendants will soon be seeking to withdraw from
Case 2:24-cv-06898-NJC-AYS Document 53 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
representing their clients – that motion was denied without prejudice. (DE [52].) As noted by this
Court, no such motion to withdraw has yet been interposed. (Order of Shields, M.J., dated Dec.
12, 2025.) As to other dates, a status conference is scheduled to be held before this Court on
January 22, 2206. Other dates with respect to motion practice are set forth in the November 1,
2025 Order of the District Court.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to quash a third-party subpoena served by
Defendant Bredow on settling Defendant Brennan. (DE [49].) That subpoena seeks production of
the Settlement Agreement. The motion to quash is opposed by Defendant Bredow, who served
the subpoena.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Legal Principles
The scope of discovery is governed by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
That rule allows for discovery of any non-privileged matter that is “relevant to any party’s claim
or defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Although
Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence limits the introduction at trial of evidence regarding
settlement negotiations, this evidentiary rule does not apply to discovery. Therefore, it does not
provide any basis to grant the motion to quash. See generally GEICO v. Cean, No. 19-CV-2363,
2020 WL 9812909, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2020); Small v. Nobel Biocare USA, LLC, 808 F.
Supp. 2d 584, 586-87 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Moreover, this Court declines to apply any presumption
against disclosure of a confidential settlement agreement. Accord GEICO, 2020 WL 9812909,
at*1. Thus, the issue with respect to discovery of the Settlement Agreement is whether it
contains information that is within the Rule 26 scope of discovery.
Case 2:24-cv-06898-NJC-AYS Document 53 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
II. 	The Parties’ Positions
Defendant Bredow argues that the Settlement Agreement is within the scope of discovery
because its provisions are “highly probative” of: (1) the calculation of damages, (2) whether
certain claims have been released or satisfied, (3) the apportionment of liability between Brennan
and any other Defendant, and (4) Bredow’s entitlement to a setoff or credit. Plaintiff resists
production of the Settlement Agreement on the grounds of confidentiality and lack of relevance.
III. 	Disposition of the Motion to Quash
First, the Court reiterates that the Settlement Agreement is not privileged. Accordingly,
the only question is whether it contains confidential information that is relevant to the claims and
defenses herein. Plaintiff claims that Brennan and Bredow engaged in separate acts constituting a
hostile environment and retaliation. The Amended Complaint sets forth Plaintiff’s allegations in
some detail. As noted therein, each of the Individual Defendants are charged with separate acts
of discriminatory conduct. To the extent that Plaintiff has discharged Brennan from liability as to
his acts, any such specific discharge has no relevance as to whether Bredow engaged in acts that
a jury may ultimately find to create a hostile work environment. Plaintiff will be entitled to
compensation from Bredow for his own acts if he is found liable. Any amount paid by Brennan
for his acts therefore has no relevance to Plaintiff’s damages against Bredow for his alleged
discrimination. The Court therefore rejects the argument that the Settlement Agreement contains
information that is relevant to Plaintiff’s damages arising out of the separate discriminatory acts
alleged in the Amended Complaint.
The Court reaches a different conclusion with respect to Plaintiff’s claims of unpaid
commissions. To the extent the Settlement Agreement states that Plaintiff has been compensated
for commissions, any recovery is relevant as Plaintiff is not entitled to double recovery.
Case 2:24-cv-06898-NJC-AYS Document 53 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Therefore, if the Settlement Agreement allocates any part of Brennan’s settlement with Plaintiff
to unpaid commissions, that part of the Settlement Agreement shall be produced to Bredow. If
the Settlement Agreement makes no such allocation or release of particular claims, it contains no
relevant information and need not be produced. The Court is aware of the confidential nature of
the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, to the extent the Settlement Agreement is disclosed as
set forth herein, the attorneys may agree that such production shall be for attorney’s eyes only
and for use only in this case.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to quash the third-party subpoena
issued by Defendant Bredow to settling Defendant Brennan is granted in part and denied in part.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
December 15, 2025
/s/ Anne Y. Shields
Anne Y. Shields
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:24-cv-06898-NJC-AYS Document 53 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>