Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-01479
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc., Magistrate Judge Stein ordered a joint discovery-status letter and set limits after plaintiffs filed a noncompliant submission.
The plaintiffs and defendants, because they must jointly identify any remaining discovery disagreements, follow the page limits, and meet and discuss disputes in good faith before seeking the Court’s intervention.
What happened
In Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc., the parties were supposed to submit a joint letter reporting on the status of discovery. Instead, the plaintiffs submitted their own letter identifying at least eight disputes, and the defendants separately responded.
The court said the plaintiffs’ submission violated an earlier order and exceeded the three-page limit in the judge’s individual practices. The court also said it was unclear which disputes remained after the defendants produced additional documents.
Magistrate Judge Gary Stein ordered the parties to submit a joint status letter by November 12, 2024, limited to three pages, with the plaintiffs’ portion no longer than one and a half pages. The court also explained that it generally could rely on defense counsel’s statements about document production and would not address disputes that the parties had not adequately discussed with each other.
The detailed version
- Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01479
- John Cronan
- Oct. 30, 2024
Background
After an August 20, 2024 discovery conference, the Court issued an order addressing multiple discovery disputes. That order required Defendants to search for and produce specified materials, directed the parties to discuss other issues further, and required a joint status letter by September 30, 2024.
The parties did not submit a joint letter. Plaintiffs instead filed their own letter, which was more than three single-spaced pages and raised at least eight disputes. Defendants stated that Plaintiffs had revised a draft on the evening it was due by adding more than half of the text and three additional pages. Defendants later submitted their positions on the disputes. Plaintiffs also filed a later letter motion raising additional discovery issues and stated that Defendants had produced 40,857 pages of new documents since September 26, 2024.
Court’s directives
The Court ordered the parties to submit a joint status letter by November 12, 2024, identifying any remaining disagreements. The letter could not exceed three single-spaced pages, and Plaintiffs’ portion could not exceed one and a half pages.
The Court also gave the parties four instructions:
- The Court generally may rely on Defendants’ counsel’s representations that Defendants complied with their discovery obligations unless there is a specific reason to doubt those representations.
- The fact that agreed search terms produced substantially more documents than Defendants ultimately produced did not, by itself, justify questioning Defendants’ statements that they reviewed the documents and produced all responsive information.
- Plaintiffs’ document request in Paragraph 5 of their September 30 letter was untimely and outside the scope of their original request concerning headcount and attrition data.
- The Court would not intervene in disputes where the parties had not adequately met and discussed the issues in good faith. A conference with the Court could not replace that obligation.
Disposition
The order directed further compliance with the discovery-status-letter requirement and set page limits and guidance for any remaining disputes. It did not resolve the underlying claims or definitively decide which discovery disputes remained. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Gary Stein.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.