Ward v. Cohen Media Publications LLC

Background

At a June 26, 2024 conference, the court addressed discovery problems in the case. The defendants had not followed the discovery schedule in an earlier court order. Charles Cohen and Steven Cherniak, who were subpoenaed third parties, had not produced documents required by subpoenas with which the court had ordered compliance on April 11, 2024. The defendants also had not produced documents or electronically stored information, despite representing on April 18 that the latest electronic-discovery protocol had been agreed upon and that production would be completed on a rolling basis by May 31.

The court also noted that depositions of Charles Cohen and Steven Cherniak had been scheduled for the week before the close of fact discovery, but defense counsel did not tell Plaintiff until June 25 that they would not attend. The court criticized counsel for failing to respond to Plaintiff’s deposition notices and attempts to discuss electronic-discovery production. Counsel attributed the problems to a lack of communication from the defendants’ clients, but the court found that explanation unacceptable.

Orders and deadlines

The court ordered the following:

- By June 28, 2024, the defendants had to provide Plaintiff with Richard Cohen’s last known phone numbers, physical addresses, and email addresses. - By July 12, 2024, the defendants, Charles Cohen, and Steven Cherniak had to produce all outstanding documents, electronically stored information, and other materials requested by Plaintiff. - By September 30, 2024, and likely during September, Charles Cohen and Steven Cherniak had to appear for depositions by Plaintiff. - By September 30, 2024, the defendants could depose Plaintiff, but only after the depositions of Charles Cohen and Steven Cherniak. - By August 1, 2024, the parties had to agree on a schedule for those depositions.

The court extended the discovery schedule so the case could be decided on its merits, even though the defendants had not noticed Plaintiff’s deposition before the previously scheduled June 28 close of discovery.

Warnings and disposition

The court emphasized that defendants and subpoenaed third parties must comply with court orders. It explained that a district court has authority under statutes, court rules, and its inherent power to enforce discovery obligations and impose sanctions. The court warned the defendants, Charles Cohen, and Steven Cherniak that repeated refusal to obey discovery-related orders could lead to default judgment and stated that it would not tolerate further obstruction. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 49. The order does not state that the motion was granted or denied.