Varon v. Hakmon
- Sidney Stein
- 1:18-cv-04426
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Varon v. Hakmon, Judge Stein ordered a deposition, denied adding parties, struck an expert report, and set trial deadlines.
The order directly affected Anat Varon, Sharon Hakmon, Mr. Faruqi, Mr. Schwartz, the three proposed additional parties, and the parties’ trial-preparation schedule.
What happened
In Varon v. Hakmon, the court issued an order after a teleconference attended by counsel for all parties. It directed the defendant to take Mr. Faruqi’s deposition by May 11, 2020, by video or telephone, with a five-hour limit.
The court denied the defendant’s request under Rule 19 to add Mr. Surujnarine, Mr. Parehunegh, and AA Inspections & Building Services Inc. as parties. It also struck the report of the plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Schwartz, because it was submitted too late.
Judge Sidney H. Stein set August 17, 2020, as the deadline for the joint pretrial order and proposed jury charges, and for optional proposed voir dire and motions in limine. Responses to motions in limine were due August 24, 2020, and a jury trial was scheduled for September 9, 2020.
The detailed version
- Varon v. Hakmon · No. 1:18-cv-04426
- Sidney Stein
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
After an April 29, 2020 teleconference with counsel for all parties, the court entered an order addressing discovery, proposed party additions, an expert report, and trial preparation.
Order
- Deposition: The defendant was ordered to take Mr. Faruqi’s deposition on or before May 11,
- The deposition had to occur by video or telephone and could last no more than five hours. - Adding parties: The defendant’s request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 to add Mr. Surujnarine, Mr. Parehunegh, and AA Inspections & Building Services Inc. was denied. The court cited authority stating that all joint wrongdoers do not necessarily have to be named as defendants in one lawsuit. - Expert report: The report of the plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Schwartz, was stricken as untimely. - Pretrial deadlines: The joint pretrial order and proposed jury charges were due August 17,
- Proposed questions for jury selection and motions asking the court to decide evidentiary issues before trial could also be submitted by that date. Responses to any such motions were due August 24,
- - Trial: The court scheduled a jury trial for September 9, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.
Disposition and effect
This was a case-management and pretrial order. It denied the request to add three parties and struck the plaintiff’s expert report; it did not state a final ruling on the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.