Friar v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-02627
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Friar v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Judge Oetken denied Plaintiff’s early evidence motion without prejudice.
Plaintiff Isiam Ray Friar, and Defendants Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., Derrick Taylor, and Maria Maese, were affected by the court’s ruling that the evidence and discovery requests were premature.
What happened
In Friar v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., Isiam Ray Friar asked the court to decide whether certain evidence about the defendants’ practices could be used at trial. The motion also included a request for a discovery order.
The court found the evidence request premature because a motion to dismiss was pending, discovery had not been organized, and no trial had been scheduled. It also explained that discovery requests generally require the parties to confer and follow the procedures in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the motion in limine without prejudice, meaning it could be renewed later in the case. He directed the clerk to close the motion on the docket.
The detailed version
- Friar v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02627
- James Oetken
- July 23, 2020
Background
On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff Isiam Ray Friar filed a motion in limine seeking a ruling about whether certain evidence concerning Defendants’ practices would be admissible at trial. The opinion also addresses Plaintiff’s request for a discovery order.
Court’s reasoning
A motion in limine is a request for an advance ruling about whether particular evidence may be admitted at trial. The court explained that the request was premature because a motion to dismiss was pending, no discovery plan was in place, and no trial had been scheduled.
The court likewise found the discovery request premature. It stated that discovery generally may not be requested before the parties confer, and that a document-production request must use the procedures in Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted that it could compel discovery if Plaintiff properly requested it and the opposing party failed to respond, but not before those steps occurred.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Plaintiff’s motion in limine without prejudice to renewal later in the proceedings. The clerk was directed to close the motion listed as Docket Number 27. The opinion does not separately state a disposition of the discovery request beyond finding it premature.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.