United States v. GMI Corporation
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:16-cv-07216
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Taylor v. GMI USA Corp., Judge Lehrburger allowed limited discovery about late documents, excluded one, and denied Taylor’s remaining requests.
Stefano Maroni, Devyn Taylor, GMI USA Corp., and Belovefine, Ltd. were affected. Maroni could use some late-produced documents subject to other objections, lost the ability to use Exhibit 14, had to produce additional responsive documents and cooperate with depositions, and had to pay certain deposition costs. Taylor received limited discovery about the late-produced documents, while her remaining alternative requests were denied.
What happened
United States ex rel. Devyn Taylor v. GMI USA Corp., Belovefine, Ltd., and Stefano Maroni concerns documents Stefano Maroni produced after discovery ended in Devyn Taylor’s False Claims Act lawsuit about allegedly reduced import duties on shoes.
Maroni asked the court to allow the documents at trial. Taylor did not object to six documents based on their late production but objected to four others and requested additional discovery. The court considered the request as a motion to allow the documents at trial, not as a request to reconsider the earlier partial summary-judgment ruling.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger excluded one email from an undisclosed witness, allowed three other contested documents to remain available subject to other objections, and ordered limited additional discovery and document production. The court also assigned certain deposition costs to Maroni and denied Taylor’s remaining alternative requests.
The detailed version
- United States v. GMI Corporation · No. 1:16-cv-07216
- Robert Lehrburger
- May 27, 2025
Background
Devyn Taylor brought this False Claims Act case on behalf of the United States and herself. She alleges that GMI USA Corp., Belovefine, Ltd., and Stefano Maroni falsified import-duty codes and misdescribed imported shoes to reduce the duties owed. The opinion states that the two corporate defendants had defaulted because they did not retain new counsel after their prior counsel withdrew.
On March 13, 2025, the court granted partial summary judgment for Taylor on certain liability issues. It found no material factual dispute about the required obligation and materiality elements, but found that Taylor had not established the false-statement-or-record and causation elements for summary judgment.
In opposing that motion, Maroni submitted 10 documents that had not been disclosed during discovery. The court ruled that it could not consider them as summary-judgment evidence because Maroni had not produced them during discovery. The court also stated that, even if considered, the documents would not have been material to the summary-judgment motion because they mainly concerned Maroni’s knowledge and involvement, an issue on which Taylor had not sought summary judgment.
Motion and disputed documents
Maroni later moved for reconsideration, but he did not seek reconsideration of the summary-judgment ruling. He sought permission to use the late-produced documents at trial. The court determined that there was nothing to reconsider because its prior ruling addressed only the documents’ use as summary-judgment evidence, not their admissibility at trial. The court therefore treated Maroni’s filing as either a request to reopen discovery or a motion in limine, meaning a request for a pretrial ruling about evidence. The court treated it as a motion in limine.
Taylor did not contest the exclusion of six documents based solely on their late disclosure. She objected to four documents: Exhibit 4, a third-party laboratory report about the composition of a shoe style; Exhibit 8, an email referencing a report from the same laboratory; Exhibit 14, an email stating that Maroni instructed employees to use the correct duty codes; and Exhibit A, an unidentified photograph of partially deconstructed shoes. Taylor also requested depositions, additional document production, an explanation from Maroni’s former counsel, and reimbursement of her costs for opposing the motion.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that allowing the four contested documents without giving Taylor an opportunity to investigate them would be unfair. The documents appeared potentially significant because the laboratory-related materials and photograph concerned whether certain shoes had “foxing,” a characteristic that affected the import duties. Exhibit 14 was significant because it suggested that previously undisclosed employee Jessie Gong might testify that she used, and Maroni instructed her to use, correct customs codes.
Because discovery had closed, reopening it required good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). The court focused primarily on Maroni’s diligence. It found that the contested documents were responsive to Taylor’s discovery requests and should have been produced during discovery. The court rejected Maroni’s reliance on his later self-represented status because his attorney had represented, when seeking withdrawal, that fact discovery was complete. Maroni also gave no explanation for why documents he called essential to his defense had not been located and produced earlier. The court found that Maroni was not diligent and that his failure to produce the documents was not substantially justified.
The other factors were mixed. Trial was scheduled for November 12, 2025, but more than five months remained, which the court found sufficient for limited discovery and trial preparation. Taylor opposed the request, but recognized that alternative relief was available. The court found that Taylor’s added expense and diversion of trial-preparation time would cause only minimal prejudice. The court also noted that the requested discovery was relevant to the late-produced documents.
Ruling
The court ordered the following:
- The six documents Taylor did not contest on late-disclosure grounds—Exhibits 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 15—would not be excluded on that basis. Other objections remained available.
- Exhibit 14, the October 3, 2024 email from Jessie Gong, was excluded because it was essentially an unsworn statement from an undisclosed witness.
- Exhibits 4, 8, and A would not be excluded solely because they were produced late. Other objections remained available.
- Maroni had to produce, by June 6, 2025, any additional responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, including documents he intended to use at trial and specified categories of documents identified in the order. He would be barred from introducing documents not produced as required.
- Taylor could depose Greenstein, Gong, Consumer Testing Laboratories, Inc., and Maroni about the undisclosed and other untimely produced documents. The depositions had to be completed by July 15,
- 6. Maroni had to pay the court-reporter cost for his own deposition. The parties had to split the court-reporter costs for the other depositions. Maroni did not have to pay Taylor’s attorney’s fees for the depositions.
- Taylor’s remaining alternative requests were denied.
The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 117. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger stated that the court had considered the remaining arguments and found them moot or without merit.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.