Chaudhry v. Medwiz Pharmacy, LLC.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-07915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chaudhry v. Medwiz Pharmacy, Judge Halpern denied amendment and ESI-protocol requests, extended discovery, and changed conference dates.
Zahra Chaudhry and the defendants, including Medwiz Pharmacy, LLC. and Newhouse, were affected by the rulings on amendment, discovery obligations, electronically stored information, and case-management scheduling.
What happened
In Chaudhry v. Medwiz Pharmacy, LLC., the court addressed Zahra Chaudhry’s requests concerning amendment of pleadings, discovery, electronically stored information, and scheduled conferences.
The court denied leave to amend because the deadline had expired, denied the request to require Defendants to use Chaudhry’s electronically stored information protocol, and granted an extension of fact discovery to September 16, 2025. It canceled the July 24 conference, denied Chaudhry’s request to adjourn that conference as moot, and moved the October case management conference to October 30, 2025.
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the parties to respond to outstanding written discovery and meet about prompt production of electronically stored information. He also stated that Defendants’ anticipated motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 was unnecessary and that the court would address the claims against Defendant Newhouse at the case management conference.
The detailed version
- Chaudhry v. Medwiz Pharmacy, LLC. · No. 7:24-cv-07915
- Philip Halpern
- July 23, 2025
Background
The court reviewed Plaintiff Zahra Chaudhry’s letter motion (Doc. 27), Defendants’ response (Doc. 29), and Chaudhry’s application to adjourn the conference scheduled for July 24, 2025 (Doc. 31). The order addressed amendment of pleadings, fact discovery, electronically stored information (ESI), a proposed protective order, and case-management dates.
Rulings
The court canceled the July 24, 2025 conference and denied Chaudhry’s application to adjourn that conference as moot. It denied her application for leave to amend because the deadline for amending pleadings under the scheduling order had expired on March 20, 2025. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), which governs scheduling orders.
The court granted Chaudhry’s application to extend the deadline for completing fact discovery. All fact discovery, including written discovery, must be completed by September 16, 2025. The parties were directed to promptly respond to all outstanding written discovery requests.
The court denied Chaudhry’s application to compel Defendants to use her ESI protocol. It directed the parties to meet and confer about prompt production of ESI responsive to her document requests. Regarding Defendants’ request for a protective order, the court referred the parties to its Individual Practices Rule 1(1).
The court adjourned the case management conference from October 21, 2025, to October 30, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. It also stated that Defendants’ anticipated motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 was unnecessary and that the court would address the propriety of Chaudhry’s claims against Defendant Newhouse at the case management conference. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate the pending motion sequences at Docs. 25 and 31.
Disposition
This order resolved scheduling, amendment, and discovery matters. It did not decide the merits of the claims. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered the order on July 23, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.