Ebomwonyi v. Sea Shipping Line
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-11243
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ebomwonyi v. Sea Shipping Line, Judge Furman denied Ebomwonyi’s discovery motion because the amended complaint was dismissed and no claims remained.
Omoruyi Ebomwonyi and Owolabi Olowookere, whose discovery motion was denied; the order also stated that Ebomwonyi could not represent Olowookere.
What happened
In Omoruyi Ebomwonyi and Owolabi Olowookere v. Sea Shipping Line and Maersk Lines, Omoruyi Ebomwonyi filed a motion seeking a conference about discovery. The court noted that the amended complaint had been dismissed and that no claims were pending.
The court said the motion was improper to the extent it was filed for Owolabi Olowookere because Ebomwonyi was not allowed to represent Olowookere. The court also said the motion lacked merit because filing a complaint does not automatically create a right to discovery, and it stated that no complaint had been filed in the relevant circumstances.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the motion, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 54 and mail the order to the plaintiffs, and left all dates and deadlines in effect.
The detailed version
- Ebomwonyi v. Sea Shipping Line · No. 1:19-cv-11243
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 14, 2020
Background
Plaintiff Omoruyi Ebomwonyi filed a motion styled as a “JOINT MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ET AL CONFERENC [sic].” The order states that Ebomwonyi was not permitted to represent plaintiff Owolabi Olowookere, as explained in the court’s July 21, 2020 Opinion and Order.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint had been dismissed and that no claims were currently pending. It also relied on the principle that filing a complaint does not automatically open the door to discovery. The court further stated that, where a plaintiff has not even filed a complaint, that plaintiff is not entitled to discovery as a matter of right.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the motion. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 54 and mail the order to the plaintiffs. It also stated that all dates and deadlines remained in effect.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.