Silva v. Mpower Energy, LLC
- Ona Wang
- 1:23-cv-09849
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Silva v. Mpower Energy, LLC, Judge Wang ruled on discovery disputes about arbitration evidence, document production, and a deposition location.
The discovery rulings affect Silva and the other plaintiffs and proposed class members, Mpower Energy, LLC, Mpower Energy NJ LLC, and plaintiff Burke-Hamilton’s deposition.
What happened
In Silva v. Mpower Energy, LLC, the plaintiffs and proposed class asked the court to resolve three discovery disputes while the parties conducted limited discovery about whether the claims must go to arbitration.
The plaintiffs sought timely identification of Mpower’s potential witnesses and production of declarations, completion of document production by June 7, and permission for plaintiff Burke-Hamilton to be deposed in Washington, D.C., or remotely instead of traveling to Manhattan. They argued that late disclosures would interfere with their ability to prepare and that travel would impose unnecessary hardship.
Judge Ona T. Wang’s endorsement clearly marks the request for additional document production as “Denied.” The endorsement also appears to mark the deposition-location request as “Denied as moot.” The text provided does not clearly show the disposition of the request for witness identities and declarations.
The detailed version
- Silva v. Mpower Energy, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-09849
- Ona Wang
- June 12, 2024
Background
The filing concerns three discovery disputes in a proposed consumer class action brought by Silva and other plaintiffs against Mpower Energy, LLC and Mpower Energy NJ LLC. The parties were conducting limited discovery concerning Mpower’s position that the plaintiffs agreed to mandatory arbitration and waived class proceedings. The filing was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs and proposed class and was addressed to Judge Ona T. Wang.
Disputes and Requests
First, the plaintiffs asked the court to require Mpower to identify all people whose statements or testimony it might use to support its arbitration motion and to produce any declarations or witness statements it intended to submit with an omnibus dispositive motion. The plaintiffs said Mpower had identified only two door-to-door sales agents and was improperly withholding other potential witnesses and statements.
Second, the plaintiffs asked the court to order Mpower to complete its document production by June 7, 2024. They said Mpower had produced documents for both plaintiffs on May 8 but would not say whether more documents would be produced or when.
Third, the plaintiffs asked the court to require that plaintiff Burke-Hamilton’s deposition occur in Washington, D.C., or by remote video rather than at defense counsel’s Manhattan offices. They argued that travel from Washington, D.C., would require him to cancel substantially more therapy sessions, cause lost income, and impose travel costs, while Mpower would not be prejudiced by a Washington, D.C., or remote deposition.
Disposition
The endorsement shown in the provided text marks the request that Mpower produce additional documents by June 7 as “Denied.” It also appears to mark the deposition-location request as “Denied as moot.” The provided text does not clearly show a ruling on the request concerning witness identities, declarations, or witness statements. Judge Wang’s endorsement, rather than the plaintiffs’ arguments, controls the dispositions summarized here.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning discovery. It does not decide whether the claims are subject to arbitration or resolve the merits of the underlying consumer class action.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.