Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 4, 2021

Cheng v. Guo

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:20-cv-05678
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cheng v. Guo, Judge Failla ordered a telephone discovery conference after reviewing Defendant’s request and Plaintiff’s response.

Who this affects

The parties to Cheng v. Guo, who were ordered to participate in the telephone discovery conference.

What happened

In Cheng v. Guo, Defendant requested a conference about Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and Plaintiff submitted a written response opposing the request for court intervention.

Plaintiff argued that the discovery requests were proper and relevant to issues including punitive damages, credibility, and financial information. The opinion does not resolve those discovery disputes.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the parties to appear by telephone for a discovery conference on January 21, 2021, at noon.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cheng v. Guo · No. 1:20-cv-05678
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Jan. 4, 2021

Background

The court received Defendant’s request for a conference about Plaintiff’s discovery requests, identified as Docket Number 26, and Plaintiff’s response, identified as Docket Number 27. In the response, Plaintiff argued that the discovery requests were reasonable and relevant to issues including punitive damages, credibility, and financial information. Plaintiff opposed additional court intervention and argued that a conference was unnecessary.

Court’s Action

The court ordered the parties to appear for a telephone conference regarding discovery on January 21, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. The court provided a telephone number and access code for the conference. The order did not decide whether the disputed discovery requests were proper, whether a confidentiality order was warranted, or whether either party was entitled to fees or other relief.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.