stipulate — are relevant to the determination of the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause because they bear upon both an evaluation of possible loss at the time of contracting and the difficulty of determining actual damages. See 139 Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Giallelis, No. 94 Civ. 7956, 1996 WL 154108, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. April 3, 1996) (finding that, although enforceability of liquidated damages clause is legal question, “there are genuine issues of disputed fact that bear on the legal question” and that “[wjithout knowing the amount of actual damages, I cannot deter mine whether the amount of liquidated damages bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss”); see also Malinowski v. Wall Street Source, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 9592, 2010 WL 3910155, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2010) (<HOLDING>); Palm Bay International, 2009 WL 3757054, at
holding that information related to mitigation of damages is relevant and discoverable since it would be inappropriate for court to determine at discovery stage if liquidated damages clause applied although its application would obviate duty to mitigate holding that a mitigation proceeding for liquidated damages under 19 usc  1623cis voluntary holding that because liquidated damages under the adea are punitive in nature a jurys award of state punitive damages and adea liquidated damages constitutes a double recovery and therefore reducing the total recovery by the amount of the liquidated damages award holding that the validity of a liquidated damages clause is a question of law and reviewing it without deference holding that information related to mitigation of damages is relevant and discoverable since it would be inappropriate for the court to decide substantive question of plaintiffs duty to mitigate at discovery stage