Millan v. VeoRide, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-03506
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Millan v. VeoRide, Inc., Magistrate Judge Willis denied broader discovery, partly granted an extension, and denied further briefing.
Nicolas Millan must proceed without the broader discovery he sought, while VeoRide, Inc. must comply with the outstanding agreed-upon disclosures and the revised discovery schedule.
What happened
Millan v. VeoRide, Inc. concerns Nicolas Millan’s allegation that he was injured when a throttle stuck while he was using VeoRide’s electric scooter on December 31, 2021. Millan asked VeoRide for broader records about complaints, similar incidents, and maintenance or repair of scooters.
The court denied Millan’s request to compel the additional discovery. It found that VeoRide had already provided relevant stuck-throttle records, that Millan had not given enough objective support for expanding the searches, and that the proposed searches would place too much burden on VeoRide compared with their likely benefit. The court also partly granted Millan’s request to extend discovery for disclosures the parties had already agreed to make.
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis set deadlines for depositions, fact discovery, expert disclosures, and expert discovery. The court also denied Millan’s request for further briefing.
The detailed version
- Millan v. VeoRide, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03506
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 27, 2025
Background
The case concerns an incident on December 31, 2021, in which Nicolas Millan alleges that he was injured by a stuck throttle while using VeoRide, Inc.’s electric scooter. Judge Ronnie Abrams referred the case to this Court for general pretrial matters. The opinion was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis.
Motion to Compel Discovery
Millan asked the court to require VeoRide to produce three broad categories of records covering the three years before the incident through the present: complaints about scooters, instructions, mechanics, or dangerous conditions; similar incidents involving the same or similar scooters, including throttle defects or equipment malfunctions; and work orders, purchase orders, and invoices concerning maintenance, inspection, servicing, or repair.
Millan argued that the records could show VeoRide’s prior notice of a dangerous condition, the condition of the scooter, and whether the throttle was dangerous. He also argued that the search should cover scooters and markets beyond the specific market involved in the incident.
VeoRide argued that it had already met its discovery obligations and had provided records from relevant searches, including stuck-throttle complaints, records concerning other scooter models, and expanded records involving throttle, brake, and application problems. It also argued that a nationwide search would be overwhelming and disproportionate because of the number of results and its limited staffing.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery must concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court denied the motion to compel. It found little evidence that Millan’s broader requests would produce information that was not duplicative or relevant because VeoRide had already provided stuck-throttle search results and records from the time it entered the market through the incident date. The court also found that Millan offered no objective support for his claim that VeoRide had a history of denying problems, making the proposed search a fishing expedition. Finally, the court found that reviewing the proposed nationwide searches would be unduly burdensome for VeoRide and that the burden outweighed the likely benefit because Millan already had sufficient discovery for his claims.
Motion to Extend Discovery
Millan also sought more time for discovery to accommodate the additional productions he sought. The court granted this request in part to accommodate outstanding disclosures that the parties had agreed to provide, including certain searches for brake and application complaints, the last known address of Dan Howe, maintenance and repair records for the scooter involved in the incident, and specified records concerning Cosmo scooters in identified markets.
The court ordered these deadlines:
- Depositions completed by August 15,
- - Fact discovery completed by October 15,
- - Millan’s expert disclosures completed by November 15,
- - VeoRide’s expert disclosures completed by December 15,
- - Expert discovery completed by January 30, 2026.
Disposition
The court denied Millan’s motion to compel, granted in part his motion to extend discovery, and denied his request for further briefing.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.