Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 29, 2020

M&R Capital Management, Inc. v. The Curchin Group, LLC

Judge
Loretta Preska
Docket
1:19-cv-04821
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In M & R Capital Management v. The Curchin Group, Judge Preska granted a motion to compel production of 2011–2014 accounting documents.

Who this affects

M & R Capital Management, Inc. obtained an order requiring The Curchin Group, LLC and Robert C. Fouratt, CPA, to produce the requested 2011–2014 accounting materials.

What happened

In M & R Capital Management, Inc. v. The Curchin Group, LLC, the plaintiff asked to compel The Curchin Group, LLC and Robert C. Fouratt, CPA, to produce documents.

The requested documents concerned accounting services provided during 2011 through 2014. The plaintiff alleged professional malpractice based on the defendants’ continuing representation from 2011 through 2018.

Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the motion. She ruled that the statute of limitations did not limit the scope of discovery and ordered production of the requested documents and electronically stored information.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
M&R Capital Management, Inc. v. The Curchin Group, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-04821
Judge
Loretta Preska
Date
July 29, 2020

Background

The court considered the plaintiff’s request for a pre-motion conference before seeking to compel The Curchin Group, LLC and Robert C. Fouratt, CPA, together referred to as the “Curchin Defendants,” to produce documents. The court treated the parties’ letters as the motion papers.

The requested documents and electronically stored information concerned accounting services rendered during 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. The complaint alleged professional malpractice based on the Curchin Defendants’ continuous representation of the plaintiff from 2011 through 2018.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the statute of limitations did not restrict the temporal scope of discovery. It found that the defendants’ cited authority did not address the scope of discovery. Because the complaint alleged continuous representation from 2011 through 2018, the court concluded that documents spanning the requested period were relevant.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and electronically stored information relating to accounting services provided by the Curchin Defendants during 2011 through 2014. Judge Loretta A. Preska ordered that the relevant materials be produced.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.