Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-07721
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC, Judge Briccetti extended a response deadline, warned of possible sanctions, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
The pro se plaintiff, Kervin Jeanty, was given more time to respond to the defendant’s discovery-related letter and was warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions, including dismissal. The order also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
In Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC, the defendant asked for a conference about the plaintiff’s failure to provide initial disclosures and respond to discovery requests. The court had ordered the plaintiff to respond by December 3, 2019, but he did not do so.
The court extended the plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the defendant’s letter until December 26, 2019. It warned that failing to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal of the case. The court also stated that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti issued the order and directed the Clerk to mail a copy to the plaintiff. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC · No. 7:18-cv-07721
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 11, 2019
Background
The defendant filed a letter requesting a conference before filing a motion about the plaintiff’s failure to submit initial disclosures and failure to respond to document requests or interrogatories. The court ordered the plaintiff to respond in writing by December 3, 2019. The plaintiff had not responded by the time of this order.
Rulings
The court extended the plaintiff’s time to respond to the defendant’s letter until December 26, 2019. The court warned that failure to comply with the order could result in sanctions, including dismissal of the case, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) and 41(b).
The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied the plaintiff’s ability to appeal without paying the required fees. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to the plaintiff at the address listed on the docket.
Scope of the Order
This order addressed the plaintiff’s response deadline, possible sanctions, and appeal fee status. It did not resolve the underlying claims between the parties.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.