Jimenez v. Bosie, LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-11570-ER
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jimenez v. Bosie, LLC, Judge Ramos directed responses and scheduled a conference concerning the plaintiff’s discovery requests.
The plaintiff and the defendants in Jimenez v. Bosie, LLC, including defendant Nilesh Dawda, were affected by the court’s response deadline and scheduled telephone conference.
What happened
In Jimenez v. Bosie, LLC, the plaintiff asked the court to require the defendants to provide several categories of discovery in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The requests included verified information about individual defendants’ citizenship, tax returns, verified interrogatory answers, audio files, and a privilege log.
The plaintiff also asked the court to strike the defendants’ general objections and award attorney’s fees for bringing the request. The excerpt does not state that the court granted or denied these requests.
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the defendants to respond by January 7, 2021, limited the parties’ responses to three pages, and directed the parties to appear for a telephone conference on January 19, 2021.
The detailed version
- Jimenez v. Bosie, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11570-ER
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 4, 2021
Background
The plaintiff’s law firm submitted a letter asking the court to intervene in discovery under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The letter states that the court had previously vacated a default against the defendants and that defendant Nilesh Dawda had moved to dismiss the complaint against him based on allegedly defective service of process. The letter also states that the plaintiff served a request under Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 26.1 for individual defendants’ residence, domicile, and citizenship information, followed by interrogatories and document requests.
According to the plaintiff, the defendants initially failed to respond. After the plaintiff filed an earlier motion to compel, the defendants provided responses, but the plaintiff characterized those responses as substantially nonresponsive. The parties then held a telephone meet-and-confer, after which the plaintiff filed this request for further court intervention.
Discovery Requests
The plaintiff asked the court to require the defendants to:
- Provide verified responses concerning the individual defendants’ residence, domicile, and citizenship for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction;
- Produce tax returns from 2016 to the present;
- Verify their answers to the plaintiff’s interrogatories;
- Strike what the plaintiff described as boilerplate objections and require full responses;
- Produce audio files corresponding to transcripts produced in discovery, or preclude use of the transcripts and audio files if the defendants did not produce them;
- Produce a privilege log for materials withheld based on privilege; and
- Pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees associated with the motion, with permission to submit a fee application.
The plaintiff argued that the requested materials were relevant to issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act, including whether the entity defendants were covered enterprises and whether the individual defendants qualified as employers. The plaintiff also asserted that the defendants’ failure to produce audio files could indicate evidence destruction or fraud, but those assertions were the plaintiff’s arguments, not findings by the court in the excerpt.
Court’s Directives and Disposition
The judge’s directives at the end of the document require the defendants to respond by January 7, 2021. The parties’ responses may not exceed three pages, and the parties were directed to appear for a telephone conference on January 19, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. The excerpt does not state that the discovery motion was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. It therefore shows scheduling and response directions rather than a final ruling on the requested discovery relief.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.