Go New York Tours, Inc. v. Aurora Tourism Services, LLC

Background

The court described a history of discovery disputes. At an April 18, 2024 discovery conference, it directed the parties to meet and confer about Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests. The parties were to determine what items existed, and Defendants were required to produce existing items by May 16, 2024.

The parties later filed materials that did not fully address the court’s instructions. On May 16, Plaintiff sent a unilateral letter stating that Defendants had produced some documents but that Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the production. Plaintiff also stated that it would not produce any further documents, renewed its request to strike Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaims, and requested that the court direct the parties to schedule depositions.

Defendants told the court that they had produced all responsive documents in their possession and that Plaintiff had not produced any document Plaintiff had agreed to produce. Plaintiff later acknowledged that it had not complied with its discovery obligations, although it argued that the case could be paused until Defendants complied with their obligations.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Plaintiff’s reliance on two cases involving court-ordered pauses in discovery. It explained that those cases did not authorize Plaintiff’s unilateral decision to stop producing documents. Because this court had not issued a stay, Plaintiff had no authority to refuse to participate in discovery.

The court also noted the parties’ conflicting positions: Defendants repeatedly represented that no responsive documents remained for production, while Plaintiff admitted that it had not complied with its own discovery obligations. The opinion did not state that the court granted or denied Plaintiff’s request to strike Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaims.

Order

The court ordered Plaintiff to produce all previously agreed-upon discovery by February 5, 2025. Plaintiff must file a letter confirming compliance that day. Defendants may file a reply letter within three days identifying any missing material.

The court stated that, if Plaintiff did not comply, it would issue an order requiring Plaintiff to show why the court should not recommend that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This order addressed discovery compliance and did not itself dismiss the case.