Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp.
- P. Castel
- 1:19-cv-02431
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Elohim EPF USA v. 162 D & Y, Judge Castel scheduled briefing and a conference on a discovery dispute but did not decide the motion.
The order concerned Elohim EPF USA, Inc., the Defendants identified in the case caption as 162 D & Y Corp. and others, and defense counsel Kim and Cha. It required defense counsel to respond to Elohim’s discovery motion and set a conference, but the provided text does not impose discovery or monetary sanctions.
What happened
Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp. concerns Elohim’s claim that Defendants did not answer discovery requests served on November 26, 2019. Elohim said Defendants provided no answers or objections by the December 31 deadline and did not make the karaoke-bar premises available for inspection.
Elohim asked the court to require complete discovery responses without objections, set inspection dates, and impose $2,660 in sanctions against Defendants and their attorneys for the costs of bringing the dispute to the court. Elohim argued that Defendants had waived objections by not responding on time.
Judge Castel’s endorsement required defense counsel to respond by February 4, 2020, allowed a reply by February 6, and scheduled a telephone conference for February 10. The text provided does not show a decision granting or denying Elohim’s requests.
The detailed version
- Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-02431
- P. Castel
- Jan. 29, 2020
Background
The provided text is a letter motion from Elohim EPF USA, Inc. asking for a pre-motion discovery conference under Local Rule 37.2. Elohim said it served Defendants with requests for admission, requests for document production, special interrogatories, and requests to enter and inspect land on November 26, 2019.
According to Elohim’s letter, Defendants did not serve responses or objections by December 31, 2019. Elohim also said Defendants would not make the karaoke-bar premises available for inspections scheduled for January 6 through January 10, 2020, and had not provided replacement inspection dates.
Elohim’s Requests
Elohim asked the court to compel Defendants to provide full discovery responses without objections and to order dates for inspections. Elohim argued that Defendants waived their objections by failing to respond within the deadlines in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The letter also requested sanctions under Rule 37 against Defendants and attorneys Kim and Cha, jointly and severally, for $2,660. Elohim calculated that amount from 7.6 hours of work at $350 per hour.
Elohim described earlier instances in which it said Defendants’ counsel did not cooperate with court-related meet-and-confer efforts. The letter stated that Defendants had not offered an explanation for their failure to respond.
Court Action
The endorsement ordered defense counsel to file a response to the letter motion by February 4, 2020. It allowed Elohim to file a reply by February 6, 2020, and scheduled a telephone conference for February 10, 2020, to address the discovery motion. The provided text does not contain a ruling on the requests to compel discovery, inspection, or sanctions. The letter is addressed to Alison J. Nathan, while the supplied case metadata identifies P. Castel as the judge; that discrepancy should be reviewed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.