Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 22, 2019

Ocasio v. 1555 Grand Concourse LLC

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:18-cv-10159
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ocasio v. 1555 Grand Concourse LLC, Judge Failla ordered a conference about the parties’ discovery dispute.

Who this affects

The parties in Ocasio v. 1555 Grand Concourse LLC were ordered to appear at the discovery-dispute conference, including the plaintiffs and defendants identified in the court papers.

What happened

In Ocasio v. 1555 Grand Concourse LLC, the plaintiffs asked for a conference before filing a request to compel discovery, saying the defendants had not provided all requested documents.

The defendants opposed the request as premature and asked the court to require the plaintiffs to participate in court-annexed settlement discussions. They cited a recent plaintiff’s death, an unfinished supplemental document production, and the time needed to process electronic records.

Judge Failla ruled that a conference was warranted and ordered the parties to appear on December 12, 2019. The order did not decide the underlying discovery dispute or the request for settlement discussions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ocasio v. 1555 Grand Concourse LLC · No. 1:18-cv-10159
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Nov. 22, 2019

Background

The court received the plaintiffs’ letter seeking a pre-motion conference about a discovery dispute and the defendants’ opposing letter. The plaintiffs identified in the correspondence were Emma Ocasio, Robert White, Duanny Escalante, and Serafin Colon. The defendants were 1555 Grand Concourse LLC and Lidia Management Corp.

The defendants argued that the requested conference was premature because they were still preparing supplemental document production. They also stated that Suzanne Guthridge, another named plaintiff, had died on or about October 22, 2019, and that no substitution had yet been made to represent her interests. The defendants argued that discovery should not proceed until an appropriate representative was substituted, although they noted that the discovery deadline had been extended to March 27, 2020.

The defendants also asked the court to require the plaintiffs to participate in court-annexed alternative dispute resolution, meaning a court-connected process for attempting to resolve the case without further litigation. They argued that the plaintiffs’ discovery efforts were increasing legal fees and that the plaintiffs had not engaged in further settlement discussions after receiving leases and an offer of judgment.

Ruling

Judge Failla agreed that a conference was warranted. The court ordered the parties to appear on December 12, 2019, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in New York, New York.

The order did not resolve whether the defendants had to provide additional discovery, whether the plaintiffs’ anticipated request to compel discovery should be granted, or whether the plaintiffs had to participate in alternative dispute resolution.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.