CourtAlert.com, Inc. v. American LegalNet, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-07739
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In CourtAlert.com v. American LegalNet, Judge Broderick denied as moot defendants’ discovery objection because CourtAlert.com agreed to update damages disclosures.
CourtAlert.com, Inc. and the defendants in the discovery dispute; the order also directed the defendants to present future discovery-related motions to Magistrate Judge Figueredo first.
What happened
In CourtAlert.com, Inc. v. American LegalNet, Inc., the defendants objected to a magistrate judge’s order denying their request for a detailed computation of the plaintiff’s damages and related discovery responses.
The court found the objection no longer required a ruling because the plaintiff had agreed to amend its initial damages disclosures and certain interrogatory responses after the defendants completed specified discovery. The court reminded the plaintiff that the rules require continuing updates as more information becomes available.
Judge Broderick denied the defendants’ objection as moot and directed them to bring any future discovery-related motions to Magistrate Judge Figueredo first.
The detailed version
- CourtAlert.com, Inc. v. American LegalNet, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07739
- Vernon Broderick
- Dec. 12, 2024
Background
The defendants objected to Magistrate Judge Figueredo’s October 17, 2024 order denying their request that CourtAlert.com provide a detailed computation of damages and related responses to damages interrogatories. CourtAlert.com opposed the objection.
Reasoning
The defendants later represented that CourtAlert.com had committed to amending its initial disclosures concerning damages and certain interrogatory responses within four weeks after the defendants produced specified discovery. The defendants’ production had been completed. Because CourtAlert.com had agreed to provide the information sought, the court concluded that ruling on the objection would be unnecessary at that time.
The court also reminded CourtAlert.com that Rule 26(a) requires a party seeking damages to supplement its initial disclosures with further and more detailed information as additional information is obtained. The court directed the defendants to address future discovery-related motions to Magistrate Judge Figueredo in the first instance, consistent with the order referring matters to that judge.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered that the defendants’ objection to Magistrate Judge Figueredo’s order was DENIED AS MOOT.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.