Johnson v. J & N Construction Group Corp.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-07857
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Johnson v. J&N Construction, Judge Caproni denied a request to compel overdue discovery and required an in-person meeting by May 16, 2025.
Johnson and J & N Construction Group Corp., whose discovery process was addressed by the ruling.
What happened
Johnson v. J & N Construction Group Corp. concerns a request by Johnson to make J&N provide overdue answers to document requests and written questions.
Johnson’s lawyer said the requests were served on March 5, 2025, and that repeated emails and an agreed extension had not produced responses.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the request. The court said the parties must meet in person and work professionally toward completing discovery by the deadline, and must contact the court if they still have unresolved issues after that meeting.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. J & N Construction Group Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-07857
- Valerie Caproni
- May 12, 2025
Background
Johnson asked the court to compel J&N Construction Group Corp. to respond to Johnson’s first requests for documents and written questions. Johnson’s lawyer said those discovery responses were significantly overdue and had not been provided.
According to the request, Johnson served the discovery requests and a deposition notice on March 5, 2025. Johnson’s lawyer sought the responses by email on April 3 and agreed to a two-week extension after a telephone call with defense counsel. The lawyer followed up on April 21, April 28, May 1, and May 8. The request states that defense counsel did not provide the discovery responses.
Ruling
The court denied Johnson’s application to compel discovery. The court said it expected the parties to work professionally and collegially to complete discovery by the deadline. It also directed the parties to meet in person for at least 90; the provided opinion text does not clearly show the unit for that number, but states that the meeting had to occur by May 16, 2025. If the parties could not resolve their issues after meeting, the court instructed them to contact it under Individual Rule 3(B).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.