Essilor International SAS v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-03361
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Essilor International SAS v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Judge Liman denied JPMC’s untimely motion to compel unredacted invoices after fact discovery closed.
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., whose motion to compel was denied, and Essilor Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd., which was not required by this order to produce the requested unredacted invoices.
What happened
Essilor International SAS and other plaintiffs sued J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. In this order, the bank asked the court to require Essilor Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd. to provide complete, unredacted invoices supporting its claimed mitigation damages.
The court denied the motion as untimely. The invoices had been produced in November 2023, and fact discovery ended on May 15, 2024. The bank did not identify the invoice issue when it requested an extension of discovery on May 13, 2024, and it did not show a convincing reason or good cause for waiting until after discovery closed.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered that the motion to compel be denied and directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entries 158 and 159.
The detailed version
- Essilor International SAS v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · No. 1:22-cv-03361
- Lewis Liman
- June 10, 2024
Background
Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMC) moved to compel Plaintiff Essilor Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (SEMTC) to produce unredacted and complete versions of invoices that it relied on for mitigation damages. The opinion refers later to “EMTC’s evidence” of mitigation damages.
The invoices were produced in November 2023. Fact discovery closed on May 15, 2024. JPMC had requested an extension of discovery in a May 13, 2024 letter, but that request did not mention the invoices.
Court’s Analysis
The court treated JPMC’s request as an attempt to reopen discovery after the deadline. Because the invoices had been produced before discovery closed, the court concluded that JPMC would have known during the discovery period if it needed unredacted versions to test the mitigation-damages evidence. JPMC did not provide a convincing explanation or show good cause for failing to ask the court for assistance before discovery ended.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied JPMC’s motion to compel as untimely. The Clerk of Court was directed to close docket entries 158 and 159.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.