APP GROUP INC., et al. v. RUDSAK USA INC.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-07712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In APP Group (Canada) Inc. v. Rudsak USA Inc., Judge Moses ordered plaintiffs to produce discovery documents and pay $3,500 after a six-month delay.
The plaintiffs, collectively called Mackage, must produce the requested non-privileged documents and pay Rudsak USA Inc. $3,500 in attorney’s fees. The order also affects the parties’ fact-discovery schedule.
What happened
In APP GROUP (CANADA) INC., et al. v. RUDSAK USA INC., Rudsak asked the court to require the plaintiffs, collectively called Mackage, to produce documents requested in discovery. The parties confirmed that Mackage had not produced any responsive documents, even though the requests had been served six months earlier.
Mackage pointed to a change in leadership and ongoing settlement talks as reasons for the delay. The court said neither reason excused the plaintiffs from their continuing duty to provide discovery. The court ordered Mackage to produce all non-privileged responsive documents by October 3, 2025, and to pay Rudsak $3,500 in reasonable attorney’s fees.
The court also said it would not grant another extension of the October 12, 2025 fact-discovery deadline at the plaintiffs’ request or for their benefit, although Rudsak could seek an extension to address delays caused by the late production. Judge Barbara Moses issued the order.
The detailed version
- APP GROUP INC., et al. v. RUDSAK USA INC. · No. 1:21-cv-07712
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 22, 2025
Background
Defendant Rudsak USA Inc. filed a letter motion seeking an order requiring plaintiffs—collectively referred to in the opinion as Mackage—to produce documents responsive to Rudsak’s document requests, served on March 21, 2025. At the discovery conference, the parties confirmed that Mackage had not produced a single document in response.
Mackage attributed the six-month delay to a recent change in leadership and ongoing settlement negotiations. The opinion noted that the plaintiffs had previously relied on the leadership change to obtain extensions of the fact- and expert-discovery deadlines. The District Judge granted those extensions but warned that further extensions were unlikely without very good cause. The court also explained that settlement negotiations do not suspend a party’s continuing discovery obligations.
Order
The court ordered plaintiffs to:
- Produce all non-privileged documents responsive to Rudsak’s requests no later than October 3, 2025. - Pay Rudsak $3,500 in reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in briefing and arguing the motion, also by October 3, 2025.
The court further ordered that no additional extension of the October 12, 2025 fact-discovery deadline would be granted at plaintiffs’ request or for plaintiffs’ benefit. The order did not prevent Rudsak from seeking an extension if reasonably needed to remedy delays caused by plaintiffs’ untimely document production.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.