Murudumbay v. 29 Street Stone Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-02610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Juan Murudumbay v. 29 Street Stone, Judge Liman granted in part and denied in part Murudumbay’s motion to compel discovery.
Juan Murudumbay and the defendants. The defendants must produce responsive documents for Request 23 by September 16, 2025; the other specified requests were denied.
What happened
In Juan Murudumbay v. 29 Street Stone Inc., Juan Murudumbay asked the court to require the defendants to produce documents in response to several discovery requests. The defendants opposed the request.
The court denied the requests concerning Requests 1 and 2, including tax returns, because Murudumbay had not shown sufficient relevance, proportionality, or need. The court also denied Requests 4, 5, 7, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22 because the defendants said they had no responsive documents and Murudumbay provided no facts undermining that statement.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the request concerning Request 23 and ordered the defendants to produce responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control by September 16, 2025. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel and directed the clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Murudumbay v. 29 Street Stone Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-02610
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
Juan Murudumbay moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) to compel the defendants to provide discovery. The defendants opposed the motion. The court applied the discovery standard in Rule 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportionate to the needs of the case. The party seeking discovery has the initial burden of showing relevance.
Rulings on the Requests
The court denied the motion as to Request 1. The defendants had admitted that Rafael Gavartin and his brother were shareholders of the corporate defendant and had been Murudumbay’s supervisors. The court found that Murudumbay had not shown that the requested documents were relevant or proportionate to the needs of the case.
The court denied the motion as to Request 2, which sought tax returns. The court explained that tax returns receive special protection because they contain sensitive private information and because public policy encourages taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns. A party seeking tax returns must show both relevance and a compelling need because the information cannot readily be obtained from a less intrusive source. The court found that Murudumbay had not shown that the information was unavailable from another readily available source.
The court granted the motion as to Request 23. It found the documents relevant and stated that the defendants were required to produce responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control by September 16, 2025.
The court denied the motion as to Requests 4, 5, 7, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22. The defendants represented that they had no responsive documents. Murudumbay identified no facts calling that representation into question or justifying additional investigation into the defendants’ discovery responses. The court noted that such additional investigation is disfavored absent a showing of abuse.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted in part and denied in part Murudumbay’s motion to compel. The court directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 43.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.