963416 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 2010). However, this case law, coupled with Trilegiant’s proposed stipulation, does not obviate the need for the discovery sought by Sitel. Cf. Palm Bay International, Inc. v. Marchesi Di Barolo S.p.A., No. 09 CV 601, 2009 WL 3757054, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009) (“[Plaintiff] has asserted that it is willing to enter into a stipulation with Defendant withdrawing such claims to the extent that Defendant continues to interpret the Amended Complaint as seeking damages relating to goodwill____Accordingly, the categories of discovery which are the subject of this motion are no longer relevant to the claims asserted by Plaintiff nor to any defense corresponding to such claims.”). Documents that show actual damages — beyond those to which Trilegiant is willing t 5 (<HOLDING>). Although actual damages need not be precisely
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 holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage 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 recognizing that the appellate courts review of the entire record protects against fraud or inaccuracy that might not be discoverable at the motion to transfer venue stage holding that employee had duty to mitigate damages following breach of employment contract by accepting offer of reinstatement