Henryx v. Aditya Radhakrishnan and Vjolca Vjubagnonc
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:23-cv-00831
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Christopher A. Henryx v. Aditya Radhakrishnan, Judge Parker ordered specific discovery responses or objections and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
Christopher A. Henryx, who was ordered to provide supplemental interrogatory responses or specific objections and warned that noncompliance could lead to a recommendation of dismissal; the defendants were affected because the order addressed their outstanding discovery requests.
What happened
In Christopher A. Henryx v. Aditya Radhakrishnan and Vjolca Vjubagnonc, the defendants told the court that Henryx had not provided supplemental answers to their interrogatories, despite an earlier court order. Henryx had objected that the requests were too burdensome but had not explained why or stated specific grounds for each objection.
The court again ordered Henryx to provide supplemental answers by the November 20, 2025 discovery deadline or explain by November 4 why the requests were too burdensome. The court said any objections must state their grounds specifically for each interrogatory.
Judge Parker warned that this was Henryx’s third and final warning and that failing to follow the discovery requirements and court orders would lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Henryx v. Aditya Radhakrishnan and Vjolca Vjubagnonc · No. 1:23-cv-00831
- Paul Gardephe
- Oct. 29, 2025
Background
The defendants filed a letter before a scheduled case-management conference, reporting that Christopher A. Henryx had not provided supplemental responses to their interrogatories as required by an August 20, 2025 court order. Henryx had previously said that the interrogatories were overburdensome, but he had not provided enough detail for the court to determine the proper scope of the requests. The court had given him the choice of providing supplemental responses or filing objections for the court to review.
In his most recent letter, Henryx objected to providing supplemental responses but did not state the grounds for his objections. The opinion also notes that he had previously received the same warning in two earlier court orders.
Order
The court directed Henryx to provide supplemental responses before discovery closes on November 20, 2025, or to explain by November 4, 2025 why the defendants’ requests are overburdensome. The court stated that, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provision it cited, objections must state their grounds specifically for each interrogatory.
The court described this as Henryx’s third and final warning. It warned that failure to comply with discovery obligations and court orders would result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed for failure to participate in discovery. The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It also directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the order to Henryx at the address listed in the docket.
Effect
This is a discovery-enforcement order, not a decision on the underlying claims. Henryx was required either to answer the interrogatories or provide specific explanations for his objections by the stated deadlines. The order warned of a possible future dismissal recommendation but did not itself impose that result.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.