Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 21, 2024

McKeon Rolling Steel Door Co., Inc. v. U.S. Smoke & Fire Corp.

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:23-cv-08720
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

McKeon Rolling Steel Door v. U.S. Smoke & Fire: Judge Tarnofsky extended discovery deadlines and ordered U.S. Smoke & Fire to finish document production by November 27, 2024.

Who this affects

McKeon Rolling Steel Door Co., Inc., U.S. Smoke & Fire, Inc., and the parties’ discovery schedule.

What happened

In McKeon Rolling Steel Door Co., Inc. v. U.S. Smoke & Fire, Inc., the plaintiff said the defendants had not completed required document production, making it difficult to prepare damages documents and a deposition.

The court extended the plaintiff’s deadline to produce damages documents until one week after the defendants completed production. It also extended the deposition deadline until two weeks after production, required U.S. Smoke & Fire to complete its documentation by November 27, 2024, and required a response concerning the plaintiff’s sanctions request and proposed project chart by November 25, 2024. Expert discovery was extended until February 5, 2025.

Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky entered the November 21, 2024 order. The provided text does not state how the court ruled on the request for sanctions or the request for an updated project chart beyond the directions listed above.

The detailed version

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

Case
McKeon Rolling Steel Door Co., Inc. v. U.S. Smoke & Fire Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-08720
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Nov. 21, 2024

Background

The plaintiff, McKeon Rolling Steel Door Co., Inc. (MRSD), asked the court to address what it described as incomplete and late document production by defendant U.S. Smoke & Fire, Inc. (USS&F). The request followed earlier orders requiring the defendants to produce specifications, price quotations, subcontracts, and documents sufficient to show revenues from sales of certain certified products.

According to the plaintiff’s submission, USS&F produced more than 15,000 pages on November 11, 2024, but the plaintiff identified missing documents. USS&F then made additional productions and stated that further documents would be produced. The plaintiff said it needed the information to identify projects that it may have bid on and lost to USS&F, and to prepare damages-related documents and a resumed deposition of USS&F’s corporate witness.

Requests described in the submission

MRSD asked the court to require USS&F to explain why it should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with earlier document-production orders and for an allegedly inaccurate certification. MRSD also requested an order requiring completion of production, an updated project chart listing project locations, extensions of several deadlines, and a change in the confidentiality treatment of project-location information.

Court’s order

The court extended MRSD’s deadline to produce damages documents until one week after the defendants completed their document production. It extended the deadline for completing the deposition of USS&F’s corporate witness until two weeks after the defendants completed production. The court required USS&F to complete its documentation by November 27, 2024, and to respond by letter by November 25, 2024, to MRSD’s request for sanctions and request for an updated project chart. The court also extended the deadline for expert discovery until February 5, 2025.

The provided text does not state a separate final disposition of the sanctions request or the request for an updated project chart beyond requiring USS&F to respond to those requests by letter.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.