Sound Around, Inc. v. Friedman et al.

Background

The Friedman Defendants—Moises Friedman, Shulim Eliezer Ilowitz, ML Imports, Inc., CYRF, Inc., LRI Group, LLC, MDF Marketing Inc., and World Group Import, LLC—sent a letter asking the court to reconsider an earlier order denying part of their motion to compel discovery. The requested discovery concerned Sound Around’s business expenses and Zendesk customer-service communications about product reviews.

The letter stated that the earlier order had found the requested information relevant but had declined to require production concerning Document Request Nos. 18, 20–22, and 52. The defendants argued that the court had misunderstood the relationship between Sound Around’s Power BI reporting system and its underlying accounting records. They also argued that Sound Around had searched only its email system, rather than its accounting and other data systems, and had produced many pages that they described as irrelevant.

Arguments in the Letter

The Friedman Defendants asked the court to require Sound Around to conduct a good-faith search for records concerning tariffs, shipping, transportation, storage, administrative and finance fees, and retailer fees. They also asked for a search for Zendesk communications concerning product reviews. These are positions stated in the defendants’ letter, not findings made in this order.

Court’s Action

Judge Katharine H. Parker stated that the court’s rules did not require a pre-motion conference for a reconsideration motion. The court construed the letter as the briefing on that motion and ordered Sound Around to file a responsive letter by October 1, 2025. The order does not grant or deny reconsideration and does not otherwise decide the discovery dispute.