Carfora v. Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-08384
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Carfora v. Harvard College and others, Judge Failla scheduled briefing on motions to compel subpoena compliance.
John Carfora, Sandra Putnam, and Juan Gonzales, along with the six subpoena recipients: President and Fellows of Harvard College, Northeastern University, Occidental College, California Institute of Technology, Trustees of Dartmouth College, and The University of Chicago.
What happened
John Carfora, Sandra Putnam, and Juan Gonzales issued subpoenas to several universities in a related case, but the subpoena recipients had not produced documents. They asked the court to require compliance.
The court set a schedule for the expected motions to compel. The plaintiffs must file by September 26, 2025; the recipients must respond, and if necessary move to cancel the subpoenas, by October 31, 2025; and the plaintiffs must reply by November 21, 2025. The court said it would schedule a hearing after receiving the replies.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered this scheduling order and directed the clerk to file it in the six subpoena-related cases and the related case. The order did not decide whether the subpoenas must be enforced.
The detailed version
- Carfora v. Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America · No. 1:21-cv-08384
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 22, 2025
Background
The six captioned matters were assigned to Judge Failla because they arose from subpoenas issued by the plaintiffs in a related case, No. 21 Civ. 8384 (KPF). The court understood that the subpoena recipients had not produced documents and that the plaintiffs wanted to compel compliance. The court also understood that the plaintiffs did not expect additional subpoena-related matters to be transferred to it.
Order
The court scheduled motion practice for the plaintiffs’ expected motions to compel. It stated that the subpoena issues appeared common across the recipients and strongly preferred consolidated briefing on the motions to compel and, where possible, on any motions to quash, meaning motions asking the court to cancel or limit the subpoenas.
The court ordered the following schedule:
- The plaintiffs must file their motions to compel by September 26, 2025. - The subpoena recipients must file their opposition and, if necessary, related motions to quash by October 31, 2025. - The plaintiffs must file their replies by November 21, 2025.
After receiving the plaintiffs’ replies, the court will schedule a hearing. The clerk was directed to file the order in each of the six captioned cases and in the related case.
Disposition and significance
This is a procedural scheduling order. It does not grant or deny the anticipated motions to compel or any motions to quash, and it does not decide whether the subpoena recipients must produce documents. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order on August 22, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.