Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 21, 2025

Li v. China Merchants Bank Co., LTD.

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:22-cv-09309
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Li v. China Merchants Bank, Judge Failla ordered a telephone conference on discovery disputes and admonished the parties for overly long letters.

Who this affects

Li and the defendants in the case, who were ordered to participate in a telephone conference about their discovery dispute.

What happened

Li v. China Merchants Bank Co., LTD. involves a dispute about the proper scope of discovery in Li’s employment case. The defendants argued that Li’s requests reached unrelated allegations, people, and periods, while Li sought broader discovery.

The court reviewed both sides’ letters. It noted that each letter exceeded the three-page limit in the court’s individual rules, but the order did not decide which discovery requests were proper.

Judge Failla ordered the parties to attend a telephone conference on March 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., to discuss the issues raised in their letters.

The detailed version

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

Case
Li v. China Merchants Bank Co., LTD. · No. 1:22-cv-09309
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Feb. 21, 2025

Background

The court considered Plaintiff Li’s pre-motion letter about discovery and Defendants’ opposing letter. The defendants’ letter described the underlying case as involving Li’s claims of age, gender, and citizenship discrimination and retaliation under New York State and New York City law, as well as claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Those descriptions were the defendants’ account of the claims and of the proper discovery scope.

The defendants argued that Li sought discovery covering unrelated discrimination allegations, other lawsuits, additional people, and a period exceeding ten years. They contended that discovery should be tied to the claims pleaded, the alleged decisionmaker, the type of discrimination involved, and the relevant limitations periods. The defendants also stated that they had offered narrower discovery concerning complaints against Mr. Pan and electronic communications from specified custodians and periods.

Court’s Action

The court first admonished both parties for filing letters longer than three pages, contrary to Rule 2(C)(ii) of its Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases. It then ordered the parties to appear at a telephone conference on March 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., to discuss the issues raised in the letters. The order did not decide the merits of Li’s employment claims or resolve the parties’ specific discovery disagreements.

Classification

This is a procedural order concerning discovery. The court scheduled a conference and did not make a merits ruling or finally resolve the discovery dispute.

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.