Howard University v. Borders
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-04716
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Howard University v. Borders, Judge Liman denied one discovery motion without prejudice and limited two others to artworks from 1965–1980.
Howard University, Larry Borders, and Virginia Borders were affected by the discovery and scheduling rulings. The case also names Centralia Madonna, a drawing, as a defendant-in-rem.
What happened
In Howard University v. Borders, the court issued rulings after an initial pretrial conference about fact discovery and document production. Howard University had to serve privilege logs by November 30, 2020 and make its Annual Reports available for the defendants to inspect at the university.
The court denied the defendants’ request for all documents and communications concerning the Artwork, without prejudice to renewing the request after narrowing it. The court granted the defendants’ requests for documents about other artworks sold or de-accessioned, or stolen or transferred without authority, but only for events occurring between 1965 and 1980.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also ordered Howard University to submit a proposed case-management and scheduling plan by September 8, 2020, using dates previously proposed by the defendants, and directed the clerk to close docket entries 20 and 21.
The detailed version
- Howard University v. Borders · No. 1:20-cv-04716
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 4, 2020
Background
At an initial pretrial conference on September 3, 2020, the court ruled on discovery issues in Howard University’s case against Larry Borders and Virginia Borders. The case also names Centralia Madonna, a drawing, as a defendant-in-rem, meaning property named as a defendant.
Discovery rulings
The court ordered that privilege logs for fact discovery be served no later than November 30, 2020. A privilege log generally identifies documents withheld from production based on a claimed legal protection.
The court directed Howard University to produce its Annual Reports by making them available for the defendants’ inspection at Howard University, in the way the university ordinarily keeps them in its business records.
The defendants moved to compel Howard University to produce “all documents, including communications, concerning the Artwork.” The court denied that motion without prejudice to renewal if disputes remained after the defendants narrowed the request. “Without prejudice” means the ruling did not bar a later, renewed motion under the circumstances stated by the court.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to compel documents about other artworks in Howard University’s collection that may have been sold or de-accessioned, but only for artworks sold or de-accessioned between 1965 and 1980.
The court also granted the defendants’ motion to compel documents about other artworks in Howard University’s collection that may have been stolen or transferred without authority, but only for artworks stolen or transferred without authority between 1965 and 1980.
Scheduling and disposition
The court ordered Howard University to submit a proposed Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order by September 8, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., adopting the dates previously proposed by the defendants. The court stated that it would thereafter grant those deadlines. The clerk was directed to close docket entries 20 and 21.
Judge Lewis J. Liman’s order addressed discovery and case scheduling; it did not decide the underlying claims concerning the artwork.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.