Sweigert v. Goodman
- John Koeltl
- 1:23-cv-05875
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Sweigert v. Goodman, Judge Koeltl denied Goodman’s motion to reconsider an order allowing discovery to continue.
The ruling directly affected defendant Jason Goodman’s request to undo or pause discovery and his other requested sanctions and restrictions; it also concerned plaintiff D. G. Sweigert’s conduct as alleged by Goodman.
What happened
In Sweigert v. Goodman, defendant Jason Goodman, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its order allowing discovery to continue. Goodman argued that the proceedings were unfair and that plaintiff D. G. Sweigert had harassed him and misused the case.
Goodman asked the court to reconsider the discovery order, stay discovery, impose sanctions, restrict Sweigert’s contact with him, and dismiss the case. He relied on alleged hearing irregularities, communications by Sweigert, and alleged misconduct involving Goodman’s former lawyer.
Judge Koeltl denied the motion for reconsideration. The text does not explain the court’s reasoning for the denial.
The detailed version
- Sweigert v. Goodman · No. 1:23-cv-05875
- John Koeltl
- Jan. 21, 2025
Background
Defendant Jason Goodman, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) asking the court to reconsider an earlier order permitting discovery to continue. The motion was directed at the discovery order and raised concerns about the handling of a December 18, 2024 hearing and the court’s treatment of Goodman’s other motion, identified as ECF No. 177.
Goodman’s arguments
Goodman alleged that the hearing was procedurally unfair because his attempts to speak were curtailed and because Sweigert allegedly interrupted him. Goodman argued that the court’s handling of the hearing denied him a fair opportunity to present arguments.
Goodman also alleged that Sweigert had sent him dozens of harassing or frivolous communications, published a private address associated with Goodman’s parents, contacted lawyers for Alphabet, Patreon, and X Corp., filed a complaint with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, and contacted Goodman’s former lawyer, Jonathan Snyder. Goodman characterized these actions as harassment, bad-faith conduct, and misuse of the judicial process. The opinion text presents these matters as Goodman’s allegations; it does not make factual findings adopting them.
Goodman further argued that discovery should be stayed because Sweigert might misuse it and because of disputes concerning statements about Sweigert’s former wife and brother. He asked the court to reconsider the discovery order, sanction Sweigert and Snyder, stay discovery, prohibit direct contact between Sweigert and Goodman outside court-authorized channels, and dismiss the case with prejudice.
Ruling
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. The text does not state that the court granted any of Goodman’s requested relief or explain the basis for the denial. The order therefore left the requested reconsideration relief denied, but the excerpt does not separately describe the status of discovery or the other pending requests.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on a motion asking it to reconsider an earlier discovery-related order, rather than deciding the parties’ underlying legal claims.
Name and judge note
The supplied case metadata identifies John Koeltl as the judge. The opinion text also identifies Valerie Figueredo as a magistrate judge involved in the December 18 hearing and refers to Judge Koeltl in discussing an earlier ruling. The current docket number is not provided.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.