Mohammed Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Alan J. Hanke

Background

These two cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. Al Thani and Stevens asserted claims concerning management and deposit agreements with IOLO Global LLC, promised payments, and related financial guarantees. The opinion states that the Court had previously ruled on the parties’ summary-judgment motions and that trial was scheduled to begin on January 12, 2026.

Defendants Sherry Sims, Alan J. Hanke, and Amy Roy-Haeger had represented themselves without lawyers at various points. Pro bono counsel later appeared for Sims, Hanke, and Roy-Haeger. Sims discovered that she had never filed answers to either complaint. Her deadline to answer had been July 11, 2023.

Sims’s Motion to File Late Answers

The Court analyzed Sims’s request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), which permits a court to set aside a default for “good cause.” The relevant considerations were whether Sims’s failure to answer was willful, whether allowing the late answers would prejudice Al Thani or Stevens, and whether Sims presented potentially meritorious defenses.

The Court found good cause. It concluded that Sims’s failure to file answers appeared to be an oversight while she was representing herself, rather than a deliberate choice not to participate. The Court also found that allowing the answers would not unduly prejudice Al Thani or Stevens. In particular, Sims had previously raised an argument that the financial guarantees could be invalid because of fraud, and the Court found that the plaintiffs were adequately prepared to address the relevant issues. Finally, the Court determined that Sims’s proposed defenses were potentially meritorious because the evidence, if proven at trial, could provide a complete defense.

Motion to Reopen Discovery

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a discovery schedule may be changed only for good cause. Sims and Hanke asked to depose Al Thani, Stevens, Samuel Miginnis, Steven Papi, and William Slater Vincent. Roy-Haeger joined the request.

The Court found good cause to reopen discovery for this limited purpose. It determined that the depositions were unlikely to require significant additional resources or significantly delay the case. The Court also found that the witnesses had important knowledge about the dispute and that none had yet been deposed. In evaluating the request, the Court considered that Sims and Roy-Haeger had represented themselves for much of the litigation, that Hanke’s former counsel had withdrawn after discovery problems, and that the Defendants had shown greater diligence after pro bono counsel appeared.

Ruling

Judge John P. Cronan granted Sims leave to file her proposed answers and granted Defendants’ joint motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of taking the five requested depositions. The depositions had to be completed by December 15, 2025, and the Court stated that it did not expect to extend that deadline. The Court also extended the deadline for the joint proposed pretrial order and other required pretrial filings to December 17, 2025, and the deadline for certain opposition papers and responsive pretrial memoranda to December 23, 2025. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions.