GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-09321
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In GateGuard v. Amazon, Judge Figueredo directed GateGuard to respond to Amazon’s contempt-and-sanctions request; she did not rule on that request.
GateGuard must respond to Amazon’s request by August 26, 2024. Amazon’s request for a contempt finding and expenses remained undecided in the order shown.
What happened
In GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon told the court that GateGuard had not followed an order requiring it to produce documents withheld under attorney-client privilege. Amazon asked the court to find GateGuard in civil contempt and require it to pay Amazon’s enforcement expenses, including attorney’s fees.
Amazon said GateGuard missed the August 19, 2024 production deadline and had neither produced the documents nor requested more time. Amazon also argued that GateGuard’s objection to the earlier order did not excuse compliance while that order remained in effect.
Judge Valerie Figueredo did not decide Amazon’s request in the order shown. Instead, she directed GateGuard to file a response by August 26, 2024.
The detailed version
- GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09321
- John Koeltl
- Aug. 21, 2024
Background
Amazon notified the court that GateGuard had not complied with the court’s July 16, 2024 order requiring GateGuard to produce, by August 19, documents it had withheld on the ground that they were protected by attorney-client privilege. Amazon stated that GateGuard had not produced the documents or requested an extension.
Amazon argued that GateGuard’s noncompliance was not justified because the court had previously ruled that GateGuard waived the privilege and because GateGuard had more than a month’s notice of the production deadline. Amazon also argued that GateGuard’s pending objection to the July 16 order did not suspend the order or excuse compliance.
Amazon’s Request
Amazon asked the court to rule that GateGuard was in civil contempt of the July 16 order. It also asked the court to require GateGuard to pay Amazon’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in enforcing the order. Amazon cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), which allows sanctions for failing to obey a discovery order and provides for reasonable expenses unless the failure was substantially justified.
Court’s Action
The order shown is a direction for further briefing, not a decision on Amazon’s contempt or sanctions request. Judge Valerie Figueredo directed GateGuard to file a response to Amazon’s letter by Monday, August 26, 2024. The text does not state that the court found GateGuard in contempt, imposed sanctions, awarded fees, or denied Amazon’s request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.