Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 18, 2024

Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc.

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:21-cv-08502
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Judge Failla extended discovery deadlines, ordered discovery responses, and denied Defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference.

Who this affects

Sanchez and the Defendants, including Clipper Realty, Inc., were affected by the revised discovery deadlines and the order requiring discovery responses.

What happened

In Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, the parties disputed discovery deadlines. Defendants served document and interrogatory requests on July 10, 2024, after the January 31 deadline, while Plaintiff asked for more time for Defendants to produce outstanding discovery.

The court received letters from both sides about the dispute. Plaintiff argued that Defendants’ late requests were invalid and did not require a response. Defendants asked for a pre-motion conference concerning Plaintiff’s refusal to respond.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla extended Defendants’ deadline to produce outstanding discovery to November 7, 2024, ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ requests by that date, and moved the fact-discovery deadline to December 15, 2024. Judge Failla denied Defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08502
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Oct. 18, 2024

Background

The court had entered an agreed discovery schedule on December 19, 2023. That schedule set January 31, 2024, as the deadline for Defendants to serve Plaintiff with document-production requests and interrogatories. Defendants served those requests on July 10, 2024.

Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the requests were served almost six months late, without good cause, and therefore were invalid and did not require a response. Plaintiff also asked for an extension of the deadline for Defendants to produce outstanding discovery. Defendants submitted a letter requesting a pre-motion conference concerning Plaintiff’s refusal to respond to their discovery demands. The court considered the parties’ letters and responses.

Ruling

The court granted the request for an extension of the deadline for Defendants to produce outstanding discovery. It ordered Defendants to produce the discovery on or before November 7, 2024. In light of that extension, the court ordered Plaintiff to serve responses to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories by November 7, 2024.

The court adjourned the fact-discovery deadline to December 15, 2024, and stated that the deadlines were final absent particularly compelling circumstances. The court denied Defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference, stating that it had resolved that request in the endorsement. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions at Docket Numbers 131 and 132. The opinion does not address the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.