Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:22-cv-03476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tang Capital Partners v. BRC Inc., Judge Lehrburger granted BRC’s request to extend pretrial filings and reserved punitive damages for later motions.
BRC received additional time to file the joint pretrial materials. Tang’s proposed punitive-damages theory was left for later pretrial motions, and the excerpt does not show a final ruling on that theory.
What happened
Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc. involves a dispute that BRC described as a breach-of-contract case. BRC asked for more time to file the parties’ joint pretrial materials, saying the current deadline was April 22, 2025.
BRC said Tang had recently disclosed that it intended to seek punitive damages based on an alleged fraud theory. BRC argued that this late disclosure could significantly change the evidence, witnesses, trial time, and legal arguments needed, and Tang said it would oppose the extension. The excerpt does not show that the court decided whether Tang may pursue punitive damages.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted BRC’s request for a one-week extension, until April 29, 2025, to file the pretrial order and related materials. The court stated that the punitive-damages issue should be addressed through later motions asking to exclude evidence or arguments before trial.
The detailed version
- Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03476
- Robert Lehrburger
- Apr. 21, 2025
Background
BRC Inc. requested an extension of the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order and related materials. The existing deadline was April 22, 2025, and BRC requested an extension until April 29, 2025. BRC said this was the first extension request by either party.
BRC identified two reasons for the request. First, it said Tang Capital Partners, LP had served amended disclosures on April 10, 2025, stating for the first time in the litigation that Tang intended to seek punitive damages at trial. According to BRC, Tang’s theory was based on an alleged independent fraud against Tang and unjoined third parties, involving conduct that Tang characterized as egregious and criminal. BRC argued in a separate filing that Tang should be barred from pursuing the newly disclosed punitive-damages claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), which can restrict the use of information not properly disclosed.
Second, BRC cited professional obligations and personal commitments of its lawyers, including international travel and an evidentiary hearing scheduled for the following week. BRC said the late disclosure made it necessary to reassess its trial strategy, including potential witnesses, exhibits, evidence, and arguments.
Tang’s Position
The excerpt states that Tang said it would oppose BRC’s request for an extension. It does not provide Tang’s substantive response to BRC’s arguments about punitive damages.
Court’s Action
The court granted BRC’s request for a one-week extension until April 29, 2025, to file the pretrial order and associated materials. The court also stated that the punitive-damages issue should be addressed through forthcoming motions to exclude evidence or arguments before trial. The excerpt does not state whether the court allowed or barred Tang’s punitive-damages claim, and it does not resolve the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.