Verificient Technologies, Inc. v. Dutta
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-09487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Verificient Technologies v. Apratim Dutta, Judge Woods denied Dutta’s motion to strike Verificient’s filings in the arbitration case.
Verificient Technologies, Inc.’s filings remain before the court, and Apratim Dutta’s motion to strike was denied. The order did not resolve the petition to confirm or the motion to vacate the arbitration award.
What happened
Verificient Technologies, Inc. v. Apratim Dutta concerns Verificient’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and Dutta’s cross-motion to vacate it. The court had set deadlines for the parties’ legal briefs and factual statements.
Dutta moved to strike Verificient’s legal brief and factual statement, arguing that Verificient’s brief was late and that its factual statement was filed late and without permission. He also argued that the filings were unauthorized replies. Verificient opposed the motion.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Dutta’s motion to strike. The court found that Verificient’s brief met the deadline, its factual statement was only slightly late and did not prejudice Dutta, and both filings were authorized by the court’s earlier order. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing costs.
The detailed version
- Verificient Technologies, Inc. v. Dutta · No. 1:24-cv-09487
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 28, 2025
Background
Verificient Technologies, Inc. petitioned the court to confirm an arbitration award. Apratim Dutta cross-moved to vacate the award. At a July 14, 2025 conference, the court ordered Dutta to file a revised factual statement responding to Verificient’s factual statement and adding facts supporting his opposition and motion to vacate. The court ordered Verificient to file a legal memorandum supporting its petition and opposing Dutta’s motion, along with a response to Dutta’s factual statement.
Dutta filed his revised factual statement on July 28, 2025. The court later extended Verificient’s deadline to August 14, 2025 for its legal memorandum. Verificient filed the memorandum on August 14 and its response to Dutta’s factual statement on August 15.
Motion to Strike
On August 18, 2025, Dutta moved to strike Verificient’s memorandum and factual statement. He argued that the memorandum was filed late, that the factual statement was filed late without permission, and that both filings were unauthorized reply submissions. Dutta later asked the court to treat the filing as a pre-motion letter, but the court’s individual rules did not require pre-motion submissions for motions to strike. The court therefore accepted the filing as Dutta’s memorandum supporting his motion to strike.
The court found that Verificient’s memorandum was filed by the deadline. The court agreed that Verificient’s factual statement was filed late and without prior permission, but found that the delay was slightly more than four hours and did not prejudice Dutta. The court warned Verificient that future unexplained delays could lead to the court treating Dutta’s papers as unopposed or imposing other sanctions.
The court also rejected Dutta’s argument that Verificient’s filings were unauthorized replies. The court explained that its July 14 order expressly permitted Verificient to file the memorandum and factual statement in support of its petition and in opposition to Dutta’s motion to vacate. The court further stated that Verificient was allowed to respond to the additional numbered paragraphs in Dutta’s factual statement under Local Civil Rule 56.1(b), and that Verificient’s responses remained within the scope of its original factual statement.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Dutta’s motion to strike Verificient’s memorandum and factual statement. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 86. The court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing costs. This order did not decide Verificient’s petition to confirm the arbitration award or Dutta’s motion to vacate.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.