Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-02857
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Judge Woods denied Plaintiff’s requests to strike evidence or obtain more discovery.
Michael Cordero Romero’s motion to strike and alternative requests for additional discovery and briefing were denied. Goldman Sachs Bank USA’s supplemental filings remained available for Romero to address in his reply. Romero was also denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
In Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, the court had ordered Goldman Sachs to produce records about Michael Cordero Romero’s January 7, 2025 call, account application, onboarding, and use of the online application portal. Goldman Sachs then filed a supplemental memorandum, declaration, and exhibits.
Cordero Romero asked the court to strike parts of those filings or, alternatively, permit more discovery and briefing. He argued that Goldman Sachs’s submissions exceeded the earlier production order. The court disagreed, finding that the materials concerned the requested call records, internal account materials, and related metadata. The court also said Cordero Romero could address the evidence in his reply concerning Goldman Sachs’s request to compel arbitration.
The court denied Cordero Romero’s applications and found no good cause for additional discovery. Judge Gregory H. Woods also denied in forma pauperis status for any appeal because the appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA · No. 1:25-cv-02857
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
On June 27, 2025, Michael Cordero Romero requested limited document production from Goldman Sachs Bank USA. On July 17, 2025, the court ordered Goldman Sachs to produce three categories of material: the complete transcript or recording of Romero’s January 7, 2025 call to Marcus Customer Service; internal notes, correspondence, or customer-relationship-management entries related to his account application and onboarding from that date; and screen captures, metadata, or audit logs showing steps he took in the Marcus online application portal.
The court also directed Goldman Sachs to file a supplemental brief explaining the relevance of the produced documents to Romero. Romero received a 30-day extension to file a reply addressing those documents in connection with Goldman Sachs’s motion to compel arbitration.
Motion to Strike and Additional Discovery
On July 31, 2025, Goldman Sachs filed its supplemental memorandum, a declaration, and exhibits. Romero moved to strike portions of the declaration and exhibits. Alternatively, he asked for limited additional discovery and more briefing, arguing that Goldman Sachs’s submissions violated the earlier court orders.
The court rejected that argument. It found that the declaration and exhibits related to the January 7 call and to internal notes, correspondence, and metadata concerning Romero’s onboarding and account use. Regarding an email-verification-flow narrative, the court explained that its earlier order had said evidence submitted for a separate motion would not be considered for the arbitration motion; it had not ruled that the narrative itself could not be considered. The court stated that, to the extent the email was correspondence associated with Romero’s account application and onboarding, Romero had made it relevant to the dispute and could respond to it in his reply.
Ruling
The court found no basis to exclude any portion of Goldman Sachs’s submissions at that stage and found no good cause to allow additional discovery. It denied Romero’s applications, leaving him permitted to respond in his reply to the produced evidence and Goldman Sachs’s arguments.
Judge Gregory H. Woods certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, the court denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 99. The order addressed the scope of evidence and discovery related to the arbitration motion; the opinion does not state that it decided the arbitration motion itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.