Alta Partners, LLC v. Suncar Technology Group, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-07974
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Alta Partners v. Suncar Technology, Judge Woods denied without prejudice SunCar’s request to discuss staying or extending discovery because the letter was not jointly composed.
SunCar Technology Group, Inc.’s request for a discovery conference was denied without prejudice, affecting the parties’ proposed discovery stay or schedule extension; the court did not decide the underlying Rule 12(c) motion.
What happened
In Alta Partners, LLC v. Suncar Technology Group, Inc., SunCar asked for a conference about pausing discovery while its motion was pending, or alternatively extending the fact-discovery deadline to March 17, 2025.
SunCar said discovery was substantially complete but that Alta had scheduled several depositions shortly before the deadline. SunCar argued that a ruling on its motion could narrow the case and avoid unnecessary discovery.
Judge Woods denied without prejudice SunCar’s request for a conference. The court explained that its practice rules require a discovery-related pre-motion request to be submitted in one letter jointly prepared by both parties. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Alta Partners, LLC v. Suncar Technology Group, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07974
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 19, 2024
Background
Defendant SunCar Technology Group, Inc. submitted a letter requesting a conference about an anticipated motion to stay discovery while the court considered SunCar’s Rule 12(c) motion. Rule 12(c) allows a party to seek judgment based on the pleadings. In the alternative, SunCar asked for an extension of the fact-discovery deadline to March 17, 2025.
SunCar’s letter described disputes about discovery scheduling. SunCar said it had substantially completed production of non-privileged documents and served a privilege log. It also said Alta Partners had noticed depositions of SunCar executives and a director shortly before the existing discovery cutoff. SunCar argued that a ruling on its pending motion could dismiss or narrow Count I and thereby reduce the amount of discovery needed.
Court’s Ruling
The court denied without prejudice SunCar’s request for a conference to discuss a discovery stay or an extension. The court relied on Rule 2(E) of its Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, which requires a request for a pre-motion conference concerning discovery to be submitted in a single, jointly composed letter in which both parties describe the discovery dispute. The court did not rule on the merits of SunCar’s anticipated motion to stay discovery, its request for an extension, or SunCar’s Rule 12(c) motion. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 51.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.