Cranmore v. Parts Authority, LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-05842
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cranmore v. Parts Authority, Judge Liman granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel, ruling that Amrit Dabie’s death did not excuse defendants’ discovery failures.
The ruling affects the plaintiff and the DRA Defendants—DRA Logistics Corp. and 130 St Equities LLC—because the DRA Defendants must produce responsive discovery despite Amrit Dabie’s death. It also concerns the other parties in the action because the case continues as to the remaining parties.
What happened
In Cranmore v. Parts Authority, LLC, the plaintiffs asked the court to require the DRA Defendants to produce documents requested during discovery. The request followed repeated failures to produce documents that Amrit Dabie had identified during a deposition as existing and available.
The DRA Defendants argued that Dabie’s death and the possibility that someone would replace him as a defendant prevented them from continuing to produce documents. They also argued that his death interfered with their opportunity to correct the deposition transcript. The plaintiff argued that further delay would cause prejudice and increase the risk that evidence would be lost.
Judge Liman granted the motion to compel. He ruled that the DRA Defendants’ continuing obligation to produce responsive documents was not excused by Dabie’s death, that their businesses continued to operate, and that the remaining defendants had access to the documents.
The detailed version
- Cranmore v. Parts Authority, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-05842
- Lewis Liman
- June 20, 2025
Background
The DRA Defendants—DRA Logistics Corp. and 130 St Equities LLC—filed a notice informing the court that Amrit Dabie, an individual defendant and principal of the DRA Defendants, had died. The court had directed the plaintiff to explain why the motion to compel should not be treated as withdrawn until any substitution for Dabie was resolved. After considering the plaintiff’s submission and the defendants’ response, the court ruled on the motion to compel at Dkt. No. 67.
The plaintiff sought documents from the DRA Defendants. During a deposition in which Dabie testified as the DRA Defendants’ corporate representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), he testified about the existence, location, and continued availability of the requested documents. The court noted that the plaintiff’s discovery requests and three motions to compel had been directed to the DRA Defendants, but the documents described by Dabie had not been produced.
Arguments and analysis
The DRA Defendants argued that Dabie’s possible substitution as an individual defendant prevented them from complying with the discovery requests. The court rejected that argument. Dabie had testified that the DRA Defendants’ office manager, Ganesh Narain, was the custodian of the responsive documents. The court stated that Dabie’s possible substitution did not prevent Narain from producing the documents. It also noted that Dabie was not the DRA Defendants’ sole owner or officer, and that the DRA Defendants continued to operate.
The DRA Defendants also argued that Dabie’s death interfered with their opportunity to submit corrections to his deposition transcript under Rule 30(e). The court found that they gave no reason to doubt the transcript’s accuracy on the points relied upon by the plaintiff. The court also stated that the defendants had not indicated that the required request for transcript review was made before the deposition ended.
The court further explained that the notice of Dabie’s death did not suspend the action as to the remaining parties or excuse the DRA Defendants’ failure to produce documents in their possession. It cited Rule 25(a)(2), which provides that an action continues among the remaining parties when the rights being enforced survive only to or against those parties. The court also found that additional delay could increase the risk that evidence would be lost.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel. The court directed the DRA Defendants to comply with their continuing obligation to produce responsive discovery. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Dkt. No. 67.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.