Hosen v. Cleveland
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-09813
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hosen v. Cleveland, Judge Abrams ordered a telephonic status conference about a discovery dispute; the excerpt does not show rulings on requested relief.
The order affects Azgor Hosen and the defendants in the case by requiring them to appear for a telephonic conference about their discovery dispute.
What happened
In Azgor Hosen v. William J. Cleveland Jr. et al., Hosen opposed defendants’ request for more time to serve documentary discovery. Hosen’s attorney argued that the discovery deadline had passed and that defendants had not shown a legally excusable reason for the delay.
Hosen asked the court to deny the extension, strike discovery demands allegedly served late, award attorney fees, and change several discovery deadlines. The letter also described disagreements about medical records, authorizations, and whether the parties had properly met and conferred.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the parties to appear for a telephonic status conference on May 23, 2025, to discuss the discovery dispute. The provided text does not show that the court ruled on the requested extension, sanctions, fees, or deadline changes.
The detailed version
- Hosen v. Cleveland · No. 1:24-cv-09813
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 13, 2025
Background
The provided text is a letter from plaintiff Azgor Hosen’s attorney responding to a defense request for an extension of time to serve documentary discovery. The letter states that the discovery demands were due on February 28, 2025, but defendants served demands dated March 8, 2025, on May 5, 2025. Hosen’s attorney argued that defendants had also received the plaintiff’s medical records on February 5 and February 27, 2025, and should have recognized earlier that certain authorizations had not been requested.
Requested relief
Hosen’s attorney asked the court to deny defendants’ request for an extension, strike the late-served demands, award attorney fees for the time spent on the letter, and extend several discovery deadlines. The letter cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and argued that defendants had not shown “excusable neglect,” the legal standard that can permit an extension after a deadline has passed. It also discussed possible sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which governs factual and legal support for papers filed with the court.
Court’s action
The text shows only that Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the parties to appear for a telephonic status conference on May 23, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. to discuss the discovery dispute. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the requested extension, struck the discovery demands, awarded fees, imposed sanctions, or changed the other discovery deadlines.
Disposition
The court ordered a status conference. No additional ruling is shown in the provided text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.