Wesco Insurance Company v. Personnel Staffing Group, LLC
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-03771
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wesco Insurance v. Personnel Staffing, Judge Wang limited discovery and set deadlines for proceeding or seeking amendment.
The order directly affected the Plaintiffs, Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, and PSG’s staffing clients by limiting subpoenas, restricting discovery, and setting deadlines for a possible amendment motion.
What happened
In Wesco Insurance Company v. Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, Plaintiffs sought to pursue misrepresentation claims that were not included in their existing complaint. They raised that intention nearly three years after the case began and after fact discovery had closed, although limited discovery had been reopened.
The order gave Plaintiffs two choices by April 16, 2021: continue third-party discovery under the existing complaint or formally ask to amend the complaint, which would delay discovery. If they continued, they could issue five subpoenas to PSG’s staffing clients to identify the end-clients where PSG’s employees were placed, but the subpoenas could not seek certain contracts or complete payroll information.
Judge Ona T. Wang ordered that no further party discovery was allowed and that discovery would stop while any amendment motion was briefed and decided. The order did not decide whether Plaintiffs could amend the complaint and warned them to consider Rule 11 before filing.
The detailed version
- Wesco Insurance Company v. Personnel Staffing Group, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-03771
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 26, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs asked for permission to file an amended complaint. At a March 2, 2021 conference and in a March 9 letter, they raised for the first time their intention to litigate misrepresentation claims that were not included in the operative complaint filed April 27, 2018.
Fact discovery had closed on November 15, 2019. Judge Gardephe later reopened discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiffs to serve third-party subpoenas on PSG’s clients to identify end-clients. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Wang for general pretrial matters in June 2020.
Order
The court gave Plaintiffs until April 16, 2021, to choose between two paths. They could proceed with third-party discovery under the existing complaint, or they could delay discovery further by filing a formal motion for leave to amend. The order stated that a proposed amendment faced significant legal hurdles under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16. Rule 15 governs amendments to pleadings, while Rule 16 governs scheduling orders and requires good cause for changes when applicable.
If Plaintiffs proceeded under the existing complaint, they could issue five subpoenas to PSG’s staffing clients to identify the end-clients at which PSG’s staffing employees were placed. The subpoenas could not request contracts between PSG and the staffing clients, contracts between the staffing clients and other staffing companies, or complete payroll information from each staffing client. Any payroll request had to be narrowly tailored using PSG’s proposed two-part request. The order permitted no further party discovery.
If Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend, it was due April 16, 2021; PSG’s opposition was due May 7, 2021; and Plaintiffs’ reply was due May 14, 2021. No discovery, including subpoenas, could occur while the motion was being briefed and until the court decided it. Judge Wang also encouraged Plaintiffs to consider Rule 11, which requires attorneys to have a proper basis for filings.
Disposition and Scope
This was a pretrial discovery and case-management order. It set limits and deadlines but did not grant or deny leave to amend and did not decide the merits of the misrepresentation claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.