National Fire Protection Association, Inc. v. Does 1-200
- Katherine Failla
- 1:18-cv-06029
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In National Fire Protection Association v. Does 1-200, Judge Failla ordered defendants to respond to a sanctions request and set a conference.
NFPA and the Pawanputra Defendants named in NFPA’s request were affected. The order required the Pawanputra Defendants to respond and attend a telephone conference, and directed NFPA to file proposed default-judgment papers if they failed to respond.
What happened
National Fire Protection Association asked to seek sanctions against the Pawanputra Defendants for allegedly failing to provide documents and electronic information required by discovery requests and two court orders. The requested sanctions included a default judgment and attorney’s fees.
The Pawanputra Defendants allegedly did not produce the requested materials, permit inspection of relevant email accounts and devices, or respond to NFPA’s communications. NFPA also said they missed a January 4, 2021 deadline and did not respond to its notice that sanctions would be sought.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the Pawanputra Defendants to respond by January 22, 2021 and scheduled a telephone conference for February 11, 2021. The court did not decide whether to impose sanctions; it directed NFPA to file proposed papers for a default-judgment hearing if defendants failed to respond.
The detailed version
- National Fire Protection Association, Inc. v. Does 1-200 · No. 1:18-cv-06029
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 19, 2021
Background
National Fire Protection Association, Inc. (NFPA) requested a pre-motion conference concerning an anticipated motion for sanctions against Pawanputra Enterprises Private Limited, doing business as Prakhya Groups Pawanputra Books; Affinity Trade Solutions Private Limited; Prateek Bhageria; Anu Bhageria; Vibha Agarwal; Manish Aggarwal; Manish Aggarwal; Vijay Kumar Bhageria; Prem Lata Bhageria; and Prakhya Bhageria, collectively identified in the letter as the “Pawanputra Defendants.” The supplied case metadata captions the matter as National Fire Protection Association, Inc. v. Does 1-200, while the letter’s “Re” line identifies the matter as National Fire Protection Association, Inc. v. Swets Information Services Private Limited et al.
NFPA said the Pawanputra Defendants had not responded to requests for production of documents and inspection of electronically stored information. NFPA also said the defendants had not complied with court orders dated October 7, 2020, and December 1, 2020. The October 7 order required production responsive to specified requests concerning communications involving people and entities allegedly connected to counterfeit NFPA publications. The December 1 order required production in a format complying with the parties’ electronic-discovery protocol by January 4, 2021.
Requested Sanctions
NFPA argued that the alleged failure to obey the discovery orders supported sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2). It asked to seek a default judgment and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the sanctions motion. NFPA said the defendants had not responded to its communications, the discovery orders, or its January 11, 2021 notice that it would request sanctions.
These assertions were presented by NFPA in its request for a conference. The order did not resolve whether the defendants violated the discovery orders, whether their conduct was willful, or whether sanctions were warranted.
Court’s Order
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the Pawanputra Defendants to respond to NFPA’s letter by January 22, 2021. She also ordered the parties to appear for a telephone conference about NFPA’s anticipated sanctions motion on February 11, 2021, at 11:00 a.m.
The court directed NFPA, if the defendants failed to respond by the deadline, to file a proposed order requiring them to explain why default judgment should not be entered, along with supporting papers, by February 5, 2021. The order therefore set deadlines and a conference procedure; it did not grant or deny the anticipated sanctions motion and did not enter default judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.