Butry v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-05843
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Butry v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3, Judge Gardephe denied an application and deferred review of TSI’s objections until after its reply.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs and TSI by denying the plaintiffs’ application and leaving TSI’s objections to the discovery order for later review.
What happened
In Butry v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3, the plaintiffs asked the court to address a dispute over documents that TSI had previously provided to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The plaintiffs said TSI had delayed producing those documents and had filed an objection to an October 23, 2020 order by Magistrate Judge Moses.
The plaintiffs asked the court to overrule TSI’s objections, order immediate production of the documents, and consider changes to the discovery schedule. They argued that TSI’s proposed negotiations would delay production and prejudice the plaintiffs before discovery ended.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the application. He stated that the court would review TSI’s objections to Judge Moses’s October 23 order after TSI filed its reply.
The detailed version
- Butry v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3 · No. 1:20-cv-05843
- Paul Gardephe
- Dec. 4, 2020
Background
The opinion text consists primarily of a December 1, 2020 letter from the plaintiffs’ counsel concerning discovery in the case. The letter discusses documents that TSI had provided to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during an investigation involving the same alleged violations at issue in the action. The plaintiffs stated that Magistrate Judge Moses had ordered TSI to produce those documents and that TSI had objected to that order.
The plaintiffs argued that TSI had delayed production, changed its position about whether the documents could be produced, and proposed negotiating about the production only shortly before the discovery deadline. They asserted that this timing would interfere with document review and scheduled depositions. These were the plaintiffs’ arguments; the endorsed order does not resolve the factual disputes underlying them.
Relief Requested
The plaintiffs asked the court to overrule TSI’s objections to Judge Moses’s October 23, 2020 order and direct TSI to produce all of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau documents immediately. They also asked the court to hold a conference about modifying the discovery schedule and referred to possible sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
Ruling
Judge Gardephe’s endorsed order states: “The application is denied.” The court further stated that it would review TSI’s objections to Judge Moses’s October 23, 2020 order after TSI filed its reply. The order therefore denied the application presented in the plaintiffs’ letter but did not decide the objections to Judge Moses’s order in this ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.