Singla v. Sherwood Partners, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-04190
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Singla v. Sherwood Partners, Judge Koeltl granted a discovery request and ordered response and disclosure deadlines.
The order affects the plaintiff and the Sherwood defendants by setting a deadline for written discovery responses, requiring a joint status letter, and directing the Sherwood defendants to correct their corporate citizenship disclosure.
What happened
In Singla v. Sherwood Partners, the plaintiff said the defendants had not answered written requests for documents and interrogatories, despite agreed extensions and a telephone conference. The plaintiff said the delay threatened the case’s fact-discovery deadline.
The plaintiff asked the court to require responses by a specific date and warned that it might later seek sanctions and reimbursement of costs if the defendants did not comply.
Judge Koeltl granted the application, ordered written discovery responses by May 30, 2025, and required a joint status letter by June 2, 2025. He also directed the Sherwood defendants to correct their corporate disclosure statement to identify the citizenship of members of the named limited liability companies and other entities or individuals whose citizenship counts for jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Singla v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04190
- John Koeltl
- Apr. 24, 2025
Background
The plaintiff filed the action on May 31,
- The court entered a scheduling order on October 21,
- According to the plaintiff’s letter motion, the parties agreed to exchange initial disclosures on January 14, 2025, and written discovery requests on January 20,
- The plaintiff served document demands and interrogatories, and the defendants’ response deadline was February 20, 2025.
The parties later agreed that the defendants could respond by March 6,
- Defense counsel sought additional time on March 5 and March
- The plaintiff did not agree to extend the deadline beyond March
- After a meet-and-confer letter and an April 3 telephone conference, defense counsel represented that responses would be provided on April
- The plaintiff’s letter stated that the defendants still had not responded and that the plaintiff had not yet noticed depositions or served third-party subpoenas.
Discovery request
The plaintiff asked the court to compel responses to the written discovery and impose a mandatory deadline. The plaintiff also asserted that the defendants had waived objections to the discovery requests by failing to respond or object on time. The letter stated that the plaintiff might later seek sanctions and reimbursement of costs if the defendants failed to meet a court-ordered deadline.
Court’s ruling
The court granted the application. As stated during the April 23, 2025 video conference, the court ordered the defendants’ written discovery responses to be provided no later than Friday, May 30, 2025. It also directed the parties to submit a joint status letter no later than Monday, June 2, 2025.
The court additionally addressed the Sherwood defendants’ corporate disclosure statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1. The court stated that the disclosure did not provide the citizenship of members of the named limited liability companies. Because the action was based on diversity jurisdiction, the court directed the Sherwood defendants to correct the statement by naming and identifying the citizenship of every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to them, including members of limited liability companies.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.