GateGuard, Inc. v. MVI Systems LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-02472
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In GateGuard v. MVI Systems, Judge Abrams directed GateGuard’s discovery dispute to Magistrate Judge Freeman rather than deciding the requested conference or motion.
GateGuard, Inc., Samuel Taub, and MVI Systems LLC are affected by the direction to raise the discovery dispute with Magistrate Judge Freeman; the court did not resolve the underlying discovery issues.
What happened
In GateGuard, Inc. v. MVI Systems LLC, GateGuard asked for a conference about a planned motion to compel Samuel Taub to respond to document requests. GateGuard said it served the requests on March 16, 2020, but Taub had not responded after several extensions and three discussions between the parties’ lawyers.
GateGuard also said MVI Systems LLC had responded late with standard objections and had produced no documents. GateGuard argued that Taub lost any objections by failing to respond on time and asked the court to address the dispute, while acknowledging the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not decide whether Taub had to produce documents, whether objections were waived, or whether to grant a motion to compel. Instead, she directed GateGuard to raise the issue with Magistrate Judge Freeman, who had been assigned general pretrial matters in the case.
The detailed version
- GateGuard, Inc. v. MVI Systems LLC · No. 1:19-cv-02472
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 20, 2020
Background
GateGuard, Inc. asked for a pre-motion conference before filing a motion to compel Defendant Samuel Taub to respond to GateGuard’s first request for production of documents. The request sought documents identified in the defendants’ initial disclosures. GateGuard stated that it served the request on March 16, 2020, and that Taub did not respond within the required 30 days.
According to GateGuard’s counsel, the parties discussed the outstanding discovery during three meet-and-confer discussions. Defendants’ counsel requested extensions, and GateGuard agreed to them on the understanding that substantive responses would be provided. GateGuard stated that MVI Systems LLC later served responses containing what GateGuard described as boilerplate objections, without producing documents, while Taub still had not responded.
Parties’ Positions
GateGuard argued that Taub’s failure to respond or object on time waived any objections and required him to respond fully. GateGuard also criticized MVI Systems LLC’s responses as deficient, including because they did not state whether responsive materials were being withheld. The opinion text presents these assertions as GateGuard’s positions; it does not resolve their accuracy.
Court’s Action
The court stated that the case had been referred by a separate order to Magistrate Judge Freeman for general pretrial purposes. Judge Abrams ordered that the discovery issue be raised with Judge Freeman. The text does not show a ruling granting or denying a motion to compel, deciding whether Taub waived objections, or resolving the adequacy of MVI Systems LLC’s responses.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.