Sound Around, Inc. v. Friedman
- Denise Cote
- 1:24-cv-01986
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Sound Around v. Friedman: Judge Cote ordered the parties’ discovery disputes discussed at a conference, without deciding Sound Around’s requests.
Sound Around, Inc. and the defendants named in the discovery letter: Moises Friedman, Shulim Eliezer Ilowitz, ML Imports, CYRF, MDF Marketing, LRI Group, World Group Import, Executive Laundry, and Executive Services.
What happened
Sound Around, Inc. sued Moises Friedman, Shulim Eliezer Ilowitz, and several corporate defendants. Sound Around said the defendants had not responded to its document requests or interrogatories and had not attended certain depositions. The case also included a pending motion to dismiss.
Sound Around asked the court to require the defendants to produce documents, attend depositions, and answer interrogatories within 20 days. It also asked the court to rule that the defendants had waived objections to the discovery. Sound Around argued that filing a motion to dismiss did not automatically pause discovery.
The court directed that the parties’ unresolved discovery disputes be discussed at the November 6, 2024 initial case-management conference. The order did not grant or deny Sound Around’s requested discovery relief or decide whether objections were waived. The filing is associated with Judge Denise Cote, and the order was signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.
The detailed version
- Sound Around, Inc. v. Friedman · No. 1:24-cv-01986
- Denise Cote
- Oct. 28, 2024
Nature of the Filing
This filing is a letter from Sound Around, Inc. concerning discovery disputes. The court’s order states that the parties’ outstanding discovery disputes would be discussed at the upcoming initial case-management conference on November 6, 2024.
Background
Sound Around identified the defendants as Moises Friedman, Shulim Eliezer Ilowitz, ML Imports, CYRF, MDF Marketing, LRI Group, World Group Import, Executive Laundry, and Executive Services. The letter states that Sound Around served requests for production on July 10, 2024, deposition notices on August 13, 2024, and interrogatories on August 13, 2024.
Sound Around asserted that the defendants had not served responses or objections to the discovery requests and had not attended the noticed depositions. The letter also states that some defendants had moved to dismiss the complaint, while the Executive Laundry defendants had answered the complaint and filed cross-claims. According to Sound Around, the defendants took the position that discovery was premature because a motion to dismiss was pending. Sound Around argued that discovery was not automatically stayed by the filing of that motion.
Requested Relief
Sound Around requested an order requiring the defendants, within 20 days, to produce documents responsive to its requests for production, attend the noticed depositions, and answer its interrogatories. It also requested an order stating that the defendants had waived objections to the discovery because they had not timely responded or objected.
Court’s Action
The court did not rule in this filing on whether the defendants had to provide the requested discovery, whether objections were waived, or whether the discovery was premature. Instead, it directed that the outstanding disputes be discussed at the November 6 initial case-management conference. The filing is addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker and bears an order identifying her as a United States Magistrate Judge. The supplied case metadata identifies Judge Denise Cote as the district judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.