Baring Industries v. Rosen
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-05606
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Baring Industries v. Rosen, Judge Netburn denied a discovery motion and ordered further discussions before any remaining disputes were submitted.
Baring Industries, Inc. and the defendants are affected. Baring Industries’ motion to compel was denied, and both sides must further discuss their contention-interrogatory disputes before submitting any remaining issues to the court.
What happened
In Baring Industries, Inc. v. Jared Rosen, et al., Baring Industries asked the court to require defendants to provide better answers to written questions about their factual contentions. The court noted that the parties had not fully discussed the disputed issues.
The court denied the motion to compel and ordered the parties to meet and discuss both Baring Industries’ concerns and defendants’ concerns about Baring Industries’ answers. After those discussions, the parties were ordered to submit letters identifying any unresolved issues, with any responses due on the deadlines set by the court.
The court also stayed the deadlines for defendants’ objection to an earlier order while their reconsideration motion is pending and set deadlines for briefing that motion. Judge Sarah Netburn directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the discovery motion.
The detailed version
- Baring Industries v. Rosen · No. 1:24-cv-05606
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 27, 2025
Background
Baring Industries filed a letter motion concerning alleged deficiencies in defendants’ written responses to Baring Industries’ contention interrogatories. Defendants responded, and Baring Industries filed an additional letter. The court noted that this additional filing did not comply with the court’s order limiting discovery letters to Thursdays and Fridays.
Discovery Motion
The court stated that the parties had not fully discussed the disputes identified in Baring Industries’ letter. The court therefore denied Baring Industries’ motion to compel discovery. It ordered the parties to meet and confer—that is, discuss the issues directly—in good faith about both Baring Industries’ concerns and defendants’ concerns regarding Baring Industries’ responses to defendants’ contention interrogatories.
After that process, the parties were ordered to file supplemental letters identifying any remaining issues by Thursday, October 30, 2025. Any response letters could be filed by Friday, October 31, 2025.
The court reminded the parties that it generally would not compel answers to contention interrogatories that seek every fact and piece of evidence a party might present at trial. It explained that such interrogatories are intended to help narrow and clarify disputed issues before summary-judgment proceedings or trial, rather than to obtain new information. The court also stated that it would not consider discovery motions filed before the parties had reached an impasse.
Other Motions and Deadlines
Defendants had filed a motion for reconsideration concerning their request for permission to file a third-party complaint. Defendants had also separately objected under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the court’s October 10, 2025 order. The briefing deadlines for the Rule 72(a) objection were stayed while the reconsideration motion was being resolved.
Baring Industries was permitted to oppose the reconsideration motion by October 30, 2025. Defendants could file a reply by November 3, 2025. The court did not decide the reconsideration motion or the Rule 72(a) objection in this order.
Disposition
Judge Sarah Netburn denied the motion to compel discovery, ordered further discussions and supplemental letters concerning any remaining discovery disputes, stayed the Rule 72(a) objection’s briefing deadlines, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 119.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.