Anchahua
EDISON ANCHAHUA and FRANKLIN ANCHAHUA, Plaintiffs, -v- M D BUILDING SERVICES, INC. d/b/a MERIDIAN BUILDING SERVICES, and MICHAEL K. CARLIN, Defendants.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-00035
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Edison Anchahua v. M D Building Services, Judge Liman denied sanctions because no specific discovery order had been violated.
The ruling directly affected Edison Anchahua and Franklin Anchahua’s request for discovery sanctions against M D Building Services, Inc. d/b/a Meridian Building Services, and Michael K. Carlin. The court’s decision left the sanctions request denied while allowing the plaintiffs to seek scheduling relief later if discovery delays prevented them from obtaining discovery to which they were entitled.
What happened
Edison Anchahua and Franklin Anchahua sued M D Building Services, Inc., doing business as Meridian Building Services, and Michael K. Carlin. They asked the court to impose sanctions because they said the defendants failed to provide discovery reports using the defendants’ search terms.
The defendants opposed the request, arguing that the plaintiffs had not properly discussed the dispute with them and that no court order had been violated. The court denied the sanctions motion because it had not entered a clear, specific order requiring the defendants to provide the reports by a particular date. The court said the delay might later become a violation, but that point had not yet been reached.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also directed the plaintiffs to respond by November 20, 2025, to the defendants’ proposed schedule for opposing an expected group-action motion. The opinion does not state that the defendants’ request for an extension was granted or denied, and the clerk was directed to close the sanctions-motion docket entry.
The detailed version
- Anchahua · No. 1:25-cv-00035
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 18, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) for sanctions against the defendants. They requested an adverse inference, which would allow the court or a jury to draw a negative conclusion from alleged discovery failures. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had violated court orders requiring them to provide “hit reports” based on the defendants’ search terms.
The defendants opposed the motion. They argued that the plaintiffs had not met and conferred as required by the court’s Individual Practices and that the defendants had not violated any court order.
Ruling
The court denied the sanctions motion. It explained that sanctions under Rule 37(b) may be imposed only for violating a specific, previously entered court order. The court had not entered an order—much less a clear or specific one—requiring the defendants to provide the hit reports by a particular date.
The court acknowledged that the defendants’ delay might eventually amount to a constructive violation of the court’s discovery orders. But only a few weeks had passed since the court ordered the defendants to produce a hit report using their own search terms, so the court concluded that this point had not yet clearly been reached. The court added that, if delay by the defendants prevented the plaintiffs from obtaining discovery to which they were entitled, the plaintiffs could seek to amend the case-management and scheduling order by showing good cause.
Other scheduling matter
The defendants also moved for an extension of time to oppose the plaintiffs’ anticipated motion under Rule 23, the rule governing class actions. The court directed the plaintiffs to file any response to the defendants’ proposed briefing schedule by November 20, 2025. The opinion does not state that the extension request itself was granted or denied. The clerk was directed to close the docket entry for the sanctions motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.