United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:19-cv-04355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein ordered Kontilai to answer discovery and rejected asylum-based objections.
Mykalai Kontilai, who was required to participate in discovery and revise his objections; the Government, Jackie Robinson Foundation, Inc., and the intervening plaintiffs identified as “Holders,” who sought discovery responses; and Kontilai’s counsel, who received a warning about possible sanctions for frivolous objections.
What happened
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., the Government, Jackie Robinson Foundation, Inc., and the intervening plaintiffs called “Holders” challenged Mykalai Kontilai’s refusal to participate in discovery. Kontilai relied on the alleged pendency of his Russian asylum application.
The court rejected the asylum-based objections and refused Kontilai’s request for additional formal briefing. It gave him seven days to submit proper responses to document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admissions. If he did not do so, his remaining objections would be treated as waived and the required materials or answers would become due three business days later.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein also warned that frivolous objections could lead to sanctions and required any withheld privileged documents to be identified in a privilege log. The parties could extend the deadlines by agreement if they reported the new dates to the court.
The detailed version
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04355
- Victor Marrero
- July 6, 2020
Background
The court considered letter applications from the Government and intervenor-defendant Jackie Robinson Foundation, Inc. (“JRF”) concerning Mykalai Kontilai’s objections to discovery. The intervening plaintiffs, who identified themselves as “Holders,” joined JRF’s application. Kontilai responded through letters from his counsel.
The court decided the discovery dispute from the letters without holding a conference. Its Individual Practices allow that procedure unless a party separately explains why formal briefing is necessary. Kontilai did not file the required separate application or explain adequately why more briefing was needed.
Asylum-Based Objections
The Government, JRF, and the Holders asserted that Kontilai had refused to engage in any discovery because of his pending Russian asylum application. Kontilai argued that responding to discovery could prejudice that application, but he did not explain how or why, and he cited no legal authority.
The court treated Kontilai’s references to an “undue burden” as an apparent request for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1). A protective order can limit or protect against discovery when a party shows an undue burden. The court found that Kontilai had not described or proved any such burden. It also rejected the suggestion that complying with discovery could cause Russia to view his asylum application negatively in a way that created an undue burden. The court stated that Kontilai was legally obligated to respond to the discovery requests.
The court rejected Kontilai’s request for formal briefing. It found that the request did not comply with the court’s procedures and that Kontilai had not shown a sufficient reason or “good cause” for extending the deadline.
Other Discovery Objections
The court stated that it was unclear whether Kontilai continued to rely on objections unrelated to asylum. It nevertheless reviewed those objections and found them unspecific and inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Document-request responses must state specifically why a party objects and whether responsive materials are being withheld. Interrogatory objections must also be stated specifically.
The court gave Kontilai seven days from the date of the order to file new responses that did not include the asylum objections and complied with the Federal Rules. If he withheld documents based on privilege, he had to file a privilege log at the same time. If he filed no new responses, all remaining objections would be deemed waived, and the interrogatory responses and documents would be due three business days afterward.
Requests for Admissions
The Government argued that Kontilai’s objections to requests for admissions were boilerplate and improper. Kontilai responded only that some were “scriveners’ errors” and that amended responses would be served. The court found that response inadequate and characterized the repeated improper objections as conduct bordering on frivolous.
The court explained that an objection to a request for admission must state the actual grounds for the objection. It rejected objections stating that a request was improper only “to the extent” that it had an unspecified defect or burden. The court warned that Kontilai or his counsel could be sanctioned for frivolous objections in the future.
The court gave Kontilai seven days to file new responses to the requests for admissions that complied with the order and the Federal Rules. If he failed to do so, all objections would be deemed waived and responses to the requests for admissions would be due three business days later.
Disposition and Effect
The order rejected Kontilai’s asylum-based discovery objections, rejected his request for formal briefing, and set conditional deadlines for corrected discovery responses. It did not state a final disposition of the underlying Securities and Exchange Commission case. The parties could extend the deadlines by mutual agreement without a further court order if they disclosed the new dates in a letter filed electronically with the court.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.