Barron v. micromobility.com Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:20-cv-04703
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Barron v. micromobility.com Inc., plaintiffs sought discovery relief; Judge Castel's supplied materials contain no ruling.
The plaintiffs and the Helbiz defendants—micromobility.com Inc., Salvatore Palella, Lorenzo Pellegrino, Giulio Profumo, Jonathan Hannestad, and Justin Giuliano—were directly involved in the discovery disputes. The requested subpoena-related relief also concerned Gallant Corporate Solutions LLC, Lester C. Ceasar, and CohnReznick LLP.
What happened
Barron v. micromobility.com Inc. is presented here through a letter from the plaintiffs asking the court to address disputes about the defendants’ discovery responses.
The plaintiffs said the defendants had produced few documents, had not completed electronic searches, had not provided documents from accountants, and had announced that they would stop discovery while seeking summary judgment. The plaintiffs requested a conference or orders requiring further document searches, ruling on electronic-search terms, and addressing the accountant subpoenas.
The supplied material does not contain a ruling by Judge Castel. It is a plaintiffs’ letter dated April 2, 2025; the supplied filing date is April 3, 2025, and no disposition of the requests appears in the text.
The detailed version
- Barron v. micromobility.com Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04703
- P. Castel
- Apr. 3, 2025
Nature of the Document
The supplied text is a letter motion from the plaintiffs’ counsel, not a court opinion or order. The letter asks Judge P. Kevin Castel for an informal discovery conference or, alternatively, orders compelling the defendants to take specified discovery steps. The text does not state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise decided those requests.
Plaintiffs’ Position
The plaintiffs said they served document requests and interrogatories in December 2024 and January 2025. According to the letter, the defendants produced only a small number of documents, did not provide electronic discovery, and did not produce documents subject to an earlier order concerning subpoenas to three financial or accounting entities. The plaintiffs also said defense counsel announced that the defendants would unilaterally terminate discovery because they intended to seek summary judgment and a stay of discovery.
The plaintiffs described three main disputes:
- Document production: The plaintiffs asked the court to admonish the defendants about their duty to search their paper and electronic files and to set a 30-day deadline for producing responsive documents, excluding Requests 14 and
- 2. Electronic-search terms: The plaintiffs asked the court to resolve disagreements about search terms for electronic discovery. The letter specifically discusses terms relating to cryptocurrency, including the proposed term “Ox!” for cryptocurrency wallet addresses.
- Accountant subpoenas: The plaintiffs asked the court to compel production of non-privileged documents subpoenaed from Gallant Corporate Solutions LLC, Lester C. Ceasar, and CohnReznick LLP. Alternatively, they asked the court to require Salvatore Palella to provide a list of documents held by those third parties and the basis for objecting to production.
Procedural Posture and Disposition
The letter states that the case had been pending since 2020, that discovery had begun, and that the court had set an October 14, 2025 discovery cutoff. It also refers to earlier appeals and earlier court orders, but those matters are not the disposition of this letter motion.
No disposition appears in the supplied text. Accordingly, the material does not establish whether Judge Castel granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part any requested discovery relief. The supplied metadata lists April 3, 2025 as the filing date, while the letter itself is dated April 2, 2025.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.