E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. v. Tekno Products Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-01910
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In E. Mishan & Sons v. Tekno Products, Judge Liman denied defendants’ premature discovery motion without prejudice, including requests about objections, searches, and a witness.
The order affected E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. and Tekno Products Inc., et al., by declining to compel the requested discovery-related measures before discovery closed.
What happened
In E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. v. Tekno Products Inc., et al., the defendants asked the court to require more discovery from the plaintiff before the November 27, 2020 discovery deadline. They sought documents and information, a detailed description of the plaintiff’s search and collection process, and an immediate witness about document collection and production.
The defendants complained that the plaintiff had not produced emails and had supposedly said that it did not expect many emails to be found. The plaintiff denied making that statement and said it was still searching for emails. The court said the requests for information about the plaintiff’s discovery process and the witness were premature because document production was not complete. It also noted that requests for this kind of investigation into discovery should be closely scrutinized.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion as premature and without prejudice to renewal after discovery closed. The court also denied the request concerning Interrogatories 14 and 19 because those interrogatories violated the court’s local rules. The defendants could renew a motion after November 27 if they identified specific requests for which the plaintiff was withholding documents based on an untimely objection.
The detailed version
- E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. v. Tekno Products Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-01910
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 12, 2020
Background
The defendants requested a pre-motion conference and an order requiring the plaintiff to:
- Treat its objections to the defendants’ Second Requests and Interrogatories as waived and produce all responsive documents and information by the November 27, 2020 discovery deadline;
- Provide a detailed written account of its search and collection process; and
- Immediately provide a witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) to testify about document collection and production.
The defendants complained that the plaintiff had not produced emails and had stated that it did not expect many emails to be produced. The plaintiff denied making that statement and represented that it was still conducting email searches.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that “discovery on discovery”—requests investigating how the opposing party searched for and produced documents—should generally be closely scrutinized because it can extend the discovery process indefinitely. Because the plaintiff represented that its document production was not complete, the court found the defendants’ second and third requests premature.
The court explained that, after November 27, the defendants could renew their request if they had an adequate factual basis to believe that the plaintiff’s document production or interrogatory responses were deficient. At that point, the court could allow a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, reopen discovery for the limited purpose of completing discovery, or impose sanctions. The court also noted that similar relief could be considered if the defendants failed to comply with their own discovery requests.
As to waiver, the defendants identified only Interrogatories 14 and 19 as requests for which the plaintiff was withholding documents based on an objection. The court agreed with the plaintiff that those interrogatories violated Local Rules 33.3(a) and 33.3(b). The defendants’ request regarding other documents was hypothetical because they had not identified specific requests tied to withheld documents and objections.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion as premature and without prejudice to renewal after the November 27, 2020 close of discovery. The court denied the motion as to Interrogatories 14 and 19 and stated that it would consider a renewed motion if the plaintiff was withholding documents based on an untimely objection to specific requests.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.