Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 9, 2019

Paragon Insurance Holdings, LLC v. Allied World Insurance Company

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:19-cv-07238
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Paragon Insurance Holdings v. Allied World, Judge Torres denied Paragon’s motions because it skipped a required pre-motion discovery conference.

Who this affects

Paragon Insurance Holdings, LLC’s two discovery-related motions were denied; the order also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate those motions.

What happened

In Paragon Insurance Holdings, LLC v. Allied World Insurance Company, Paragon filed two motions under the federal discovery rules.

The court’s local rule required the moving party’s lawyer to request an informal conference with the court before filing such a motion. Paragon did not request that conference.

Judge Analisa Torres denied both motions and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate them from the docket.

The detailed version

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

Case
Paragon Insurance Holdings, LLC v. Allied World Insurance Company · No. 1:19-cv-07238
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Dec. 9, 2019

Background

The court reviewed filings related to Paragon’s motions at ECF Nos. 81 and 83. The opinion identifies those motions as motions governed by the federal discovery rules.

Reasoning

Local Civil Rule 37.2 provides that a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 cannot be heard unless the moving party’s counsel first requests an informal conference with the court by letter-motion for a pre-motion discovery conference. The court also cited its individual practices, which require a telephonic or in-person meet-and-confer process and a single joint letter to the court. Paragon did not request the required conference, so the court determined that its motions had to be denied.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres ordered that Paragon’s motions at ECF Nos. 81 and 83 be DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate those motions. The order did not decide the underlying merits of the parties’ dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.