Adler v. Penn Credit Corporation

Background

The provided document is a January 21, 2021 letter from Monica M. Littman of Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, representing Penn Credit Corporation. The letter concerns plaintiff Menachem Adler’s scheduled deposition in this proposed class action. The parties initially agreed to a January 22 deposition, and Penn Credit says it sent a deposition notice to Adler’s counsel on January 5. At Adler’s request, the deposition was moved to January 20 at 12:30 p.m. Adler later informed counsel that he needed an interpreter, and Penn Credit arranged for one.

Deposition problem

According to the letter, Penn Credit’s counsel, Adler’s counsel, a court reporter, and an interpreter joined the video conference on January 20. Another individual may have attempted to join, but the parties could only partially see the person, Adler’s counsel could not confirm that the person was Adler, and the person did not connect audio. Adler’s counsel and office staff tried several times to reach Adler by telephone and email but received no response. After a break, the other participants rejoined the conference at 1:30 p.m., but Adler did not join, and his counsel was still unable to reach him.

Penn Credit stated that it incurred attorney’s fees and other costs, including interpreter costs and the cost of sending hard copies of exhibits. The letter says Penn Credit told Adler’s counsel that it would seek those fees and costs and asked counsel to provide another deposition date.

Requests described in the letter

Penn Credit requested a pre-motion discovery conference concerning a possible motion to: (1) compel Adler to appear in person or with his counsel for a court-ordered deposition; (2) extend the January 27, 2021 discovery deadline; and (3) award attorney’s fees and costs as sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(A)(i). Penn Credit also said it might request dismissal under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) if Adler continued not to cooperate with discovery. The letter further stated that Penn Credit might seek to adjourn its February 9, 2021 deadline for a pre-motion summary-judgment letter.

Disposition

The document is marked “So Ordered” and dated January 22, 2021, but the provided text does not identify the specific relief ordered by Judge Kenneth M. Karas. It does not expressly say that any motion or request was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, the text does not establish the court’s substantive disposition.