Zeng v. Chell
- John Koeltl
- 1:19-cv-03218
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zeng v. Chell, Magistrate Judge Parker entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for amendments, discovery, reports, and possible summary judgment.
The order governs the parties in Xiamin Zeng v. John Chell, et al., including Plaintiff Xiamin Zeng, who was representing himself, and their counsel regarding pleadings, discovery, status reporting, and any potential summary-judgment motion.
What happened
Zeng v. Chell is an ongoing federal case in which Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a scheduling order after the parties attended an initial case-management conference.
The order allowed amendments to the pleadings and the addition of parties until May 31, 2020. It set November 19, 2020, as the deadline to complete fact discovery and required a case-status letter by June 23, 2020. It also directed the parties to follow federal discovery rules and procedures for resolving discovery disputes. The order noted that Plaintiff Xiamin Zeng was representing himself and provided information about a private legal-assistance clinic.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker entered the order on April 27, 2020. Any party seeking summary judgment was required to submit a pre-motion letter to Judge John G. Koeltl by December 19, 2020.
The detailed version
- Zeng v. Chell · No. 1:19-cv-03218
- John Koeltl
- Apr. 27, 2020
Nature of the Order
The court entered a scheduling order under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after an initial case-management conference. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Deadlines and Case Management
The parties could amend their pleadings or add parties until May 31, 2020. Fact discovery had to be completed by November 19, 2020. The parties could adjust interim deadlines without another court order. They also had to file a letter updating the court on the case by June 23, 2020.
Discovery Requirements
The order directed the parties to follow Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1 and 26(b)(1) when conducting discovery. It reminded counsel to understand their duties under Rules 34 and 26(g), discuss ways to comply with those rules, and reduce disputes about overly broad or unclear requests and responses. The order stated that broad requests for “any and all” documents are presumptively improper and that an objection that does not adequately explain its grounds may be forfeited. It also cited authority stating that discovery objections lacking the specificity required by Rule 34 may be treated as waived, except for privilege objections.
The parties were directed to follow Judge Parker’s individual procedures for discovery disputes.
Possible Summary-Judgment Motion
Although the parties did not then anticipate a dispositive motion, any party wishing to file a summary-judgment motion had to submit a pre-motion letter to Judge John G. Koeltl by December 19, 2020, under Judge Koeltl’s individual practices.
Pro Se Assistance
The order stated that Plaintiff Xiamin Zeng was representing himself and provided information about a legal clinic operated by the New York Legal Assistance Group. The order clarified that the clinic is a private organization and is not operated by the court. A copy of the order was mailed to Zeng.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker entered the scheduling order on April 27, 2020. No motion was granted or denied, and the court did not resolve the merits of the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.