Plaintiffs v. Defendants
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-02270
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Plaintiffs v. Defendants, Judge Subramanian terminated Plaintiffs’ discovery-dispute motion without stating whether the requested relief was granted or denied.
The ruling concerns Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and their requested relief against Defendants, but the provided order does not specify what relief, if any, was granted.
What happened
In Plaintiffs v. Defendants, Plaintiffs asked for a conference about discovery disputes and said Defendants had not answered document requests, interrogatories, or requests for admission. Plaintiffs said Defendants’ counsel claimed discovery was stayed, while Plaintiffs disputed that claim.
Plaintiffs asked the court to require responses, award attorney’s fees, and extend the deadlines for depositions and fact discovery. These were requests made by Plaintiffs; the opinion does not state that the court accepted their factual or legal arguments.
The order directed the clerk to terminate the motion listed at Docket 24. Judge Subramanian did not state whether the discovery requests, fees, or deadline extension were granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Plaintiffs v. Defendants · No. 1:25-cv-02270
- Subramanian
- Nov. 18, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a letter requesting a conference under Local Rule 37.2 concerning discovery disputes and an anticipated motion to compel. Plaintiffs said they served document requests and interrogatories on August 1, 2025, and requests for admission on October 15, 2025. According to Plaintiffs’ letter, Defendants had not responded.
Plaintiffs stated that Defendants’ counsel attributed the lack of responses to a discovery stay. Plaintiffs disputed that discovery in this action was stayed and pointed to a case-management order requiring the parties to complete depositions by November 28, 2025, and fact discovery by December 28, 2025. Plaintiffs also described efforts to communicate with Defendants’ counsel about the dispute.
Relief Requested
Plaintiffs asked the court to compel answers to the interrogatories and production of documents. Plaintiffs also argued that Defendants had waived objections to the discovery requests, requested attorney’s fees related to the letter motion, and requested that the deadlines for depositions and fact discovery be extended indefinitely.
These arguments and requests appear in Plaintiffs’ submission. The provided text does not include a response from Defendants or a merits analysis by the court addressing the discovery dispute.
Ruling
The order states: “Clerk of Court is directed to terminate” the matter at Docket 24, followed by “ORDERED.” It does not expressly say that the motion was granted, denied, granted in part, or denied in part. It also does not state whether the court ordered discovery responses, awarded attorney’s fees, or extended the discovery deadlines. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order on November 18, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.