Piacentile v. Troxel
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-05252
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Piacentile v. Troxel, Judge Furman denied Piacentile’s discovery motion while scheduling a conference about arbitration.
The ruling denied Piacentile’s request for discovery or a pre-motion discovery conference. It did not decide the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
What happened
In Piacentile v. Troxel, Piacentile asked for discovery to help with arbitration or to preserve the existing situation while the court decided the proper forum. The defendants had separately asked the court to require arbitration.
The court found that Piacentile had not explained why the requested discovery was more than ordinary discovery for his contract claims or why it was immediately necessary. It also found that he had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for discovery connected to arbitration.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Piacentile’s letter motion for discovery or a pre-motion discovery conference. The court scheduled a telephone conference to discuss whether more briefing was needed on the defendants’ arbitration motion or whether that motion could be granted as unopposed; the court did not decide that motion in this opinion.
The detailed version
- Piacentile v. Troxel · No. 1:20-cv-05252
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 2, 2020
Background
On November 20, 2020, the defendants moved to compel arbitration. On November 27, 2020, Piacentile filed a letter motion seeking discovery in aid of arbitration or discovery to preserve the status quo while the court decided the proper forum.
Analysis
The court concluded that Piacentile’s request lacked merit. If the federal court was the proper forum, Piacentile had not shown that the requested discovery was anything other than ordinary discovery related to his contract claims, and he had not explained why immediate discovery was necessary. The court therefore found no showing of the required “good cause” for expedited discovery.
The court also ruled that, if arbitration was the proper forum, Piacentile had not demonstrated the “extraordinary circumstances” required for discovery in aid of arbitration. The court stated that Piacentile’s letter motion strongly suggested that he agreed the dispute was subject to arbitration, but it did not decide whether arbitration was required.
Ruling and Further Proceedings
The court denied Piacentile’s letter motion for discovery or a pre-motion discovery conference. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 26. The court scheduled a telephone conference for December 8, 2020, to address whether further briefing was needed on the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration or whether that motion could and should be granted immediately as unopposed. The opinion did not state that the arbitration motion was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.