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 pro se plaintiff’s response deadline and warned of sanctions, including possible dismissal.
Kervin Jeanty was given another deadline to respond to the defendant’s discovery-related letter and was warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions, including possible dismissal. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC was awaiting that response.
What happened
In Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC, the defendant asked for a conference about the plaintiff’s failure to provide required initial disclosures and respond to document requests and questions. The plaintiff was representing himself and did not respond by the court’s first deadline.
The court extended the plaintiff’s deadline twice, ultimately giving him until January 21, 2020, to respond to the defendant’s letter. The court warned that failing to comply could lead to sanctions, including possible dismissal of the case.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC · No. 7:18-cv-07721
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 7, 2020
Background
The defendant filed a letter on November 19, 2019, requesting a conference before filing a discovery-related motion. The letter cited plaintiff Kervin Jeanty’s failure to submit initial disclosures and failure to respond to document requests and interrogatories. Jeanty was proceeding without a lawyer.
The court ordered Jeanty to respond in writing by December 3, 2019. After he did not respond, the court extended the deadline on its own to December 26, 2019. The opinion states that Jeanty still had not responded by January 7, 2020.
Order
The court extended Jeanty’s deadline again, this time to January 21, 2020. It warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) and 41(b), including possible dismissal of the case.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Jeanty at the address on the docket.
Effect of the Order
This was a procedural discovery-compliance order. It extended a deadline and issued a warning; it did not impose dismissal or another sanction and did not decide the merits of Jeanty’s claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.