203 East Fordham LLC v. Jako Enterprises, LLC
- Victor Marrero
- 1:24-cv-02264
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In 203 East Fordham v. Jako Enterprises, Judge Moses allowed an amended complaint and discovery extension but denied the discovery-compulsion and sealing motions.
203 East Fordham, LLC and Jako Enterprises, LLC, including the parties’ discovery obligations and the public access status of the Althkefati deposition transcript.
What happened
In 203 East Fordham, LLC v. Jako Enterprises, LLC, the plaintiff asked to file a Second Amended Complaint and to extend discovery. The defendant asked the court to require the plaintiff and Fordham Chera to provide a competent witness for a continued deposition. The plaintiff also asked to seal a deposition transcript.
The court granted permission to file the Second Amended Complaint and granted the discovery-extension request to the extent it changed the deadlines listed in the order. The court denied the defendant’s motion to compel without prejudice to renewal after a good-faith discussion between the parties. It also denied the plaintiff’s sealing motion without prejudice to renewal with fewer redactions, while keeping the unredacted transcript under electronic seal temporarily.
Judge Barbara Moses issued the order on July 9, 2025. The order addressed case-management, discovery, and sealing issues and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- 203 East Fordham LLC v. Jako Enterprises, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-02264
- Victor Marrero
- July 9, 2025
Background
The court addressed several letter-motions concerning amendment of the complaint, discovery deadlines, a continued deposition, and sealing a deposition transcript. The order summarized reasons discussed during a July 8, 2025 conference.
Amended complaint and discovery schedule
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and 16(b)(4). The court directed the plaintiff to file the complaint by the close of business on July 9, 2025.
The court granted to the extent the plaintiff’s discovery-extension motion modified the schedule. The order required any additional initial disclosures caused by the amended complaint, and the defendant’s answer or other response, by July 23, 2025. It set September 30, 2025, as the deadline for remaining fact discovery; October 31, 2025, for any plaintiff expert reports; December 1, 2025, for any defendant expert reports; and January 27, 2025, for expert depositions and completion of all discovery, as stated in the opinion. The court also scheduled a status conference for October 6, 2025, and required a joint status letter by September 29, 2025.
Motion to compel deposition
The court denied without prejudice to renewal the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff and Fordham Chera to designate a competent witness for a continued deposition under Rule 30(b)(6). The court directed the parties to meet and confer in good faith about the date, time, and topics for the deposition. It permitted the continued deposition to occur in person in New York at the premises of the plaintiff’s counsel. The parties had to confirm their arrangements by July 23, 2025; if they could not agree, the defendant was directed to file its motion to compel on that date under Local Civil Rule 6.1(a).
Motion to seal
The court denied, without prejudice to renewal, the plaintiff’s motion to seal the Althkefati deposition transcript. The court found that the plaintiff had not shown that its proposed redactions were necessary to protect commercial or privacy interests and narrowly tailored to those interests. The court stated that some testimony about a recently entered business transaction might arguably qualify for redaction, and it permitted the plaintiff to renew the motion with a more limited set of redactions by July 23, 2025.
Pending any renewed motion, the court directed that the unredacted transcript remain under electronic seal, but that the over-redacted transcript not remain under seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Dkts. 36, 47, and 53.
Effect of the order
This was a procedural case-management order. It did not resolve the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.