Gao v. A Canaan Sushi Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-06442
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gao v. A Canaan Sushi Inc., Judge Wang denied Gao’s premature request to add Winata as a defendant and ordered the parties to address related discovery.
Gao and the defendants were affected: Gao’s request to add Wanata as a defendant was denied as premature, and the parties received directions concerning discovery of Wanata’s documents.
What happened
In Gao v. A Canaan Sushi Inc., Gao asked to change his complaint and add Riccy Wanata as a defendant. The request arose from a status letter stating that Wanata was a shareholder and employee of A Canaan Sushi Inc. who maintained the company’s records.
The court found the request premature. It directed Gao and the defendants to meet and discuss the information sought from Wanata and how to obtain it, then submit a joint status letter by June 12, 2020.
Judge Ona T. Wang denied the request to add Wanata at that time. The order also reminded the defendants to produce documents they legally possess, control, or can obtain, and reminded Gao that he could serve Wanata with a subpoena if the defendants lacked that control.
The detailed version
- Gao v. A Canaan Sushi Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-06442
- George Daniels
- June 3, 2020
Background
The court received the parties’ May 19, 2020 status letter. The letter stated that Riccy Wanata was a shareholder and employee of A Canaan Sushi Inc. and was responsible for maintaining the company’s corporate records. Gao sought to amend the complaint and add Wanata as a defendant.
Ruling
The court denied the request as premature. It directed the parties to meet and confer—that is, discuss the dispute without court intervention—and submit a joint status letter by June 12, 2020. The letter had to address the information sought from Wanata and the steps taken or to be taken to obtain it.
The court reminded the defendants that they must produce Wanata’s documents if they had legal possession, custody, or control of them. The court also stated that if the defendants did not have that control, Gao could serve Wanata with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The parties were warned that failure to cooperate in discovery could lead to an allocation of costs under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 37 and/or the court’s inherent authority.
Effect of the Order
The order did not decide the underlying claims. It addressed the proposed amendment and the parties’ discovery dispute. The opinion refers to the person as “Wanata” in most places but uses “Winata” when describing the proposed added defendant.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.