Colon v. MSMC Residential Realty LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-01197
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Colon v. MSMC Residential Realty LLC, Judge Engelmayer closed a pending motion and ordered defendants to file a reply concerning plaintiffs’ recent disclosures.
The order affected the plaintiffs, defendants, and the handling of 21 pages of documents concerning plaintiffs’ decedent’s employment and workers’ compensation records.
What happened
In Colon v. MSMC Residential Realty LLC, plaintiffs told the court that they had provided defendants with 21 pages of documents concerning their decedent Miguel Gonzalez’s employment and workers’ compensation records. Plaintiffs said the materials were timely supplements required by the federal discovery rules and were relevant to who employed the decedent.
Plaintiffs argued that defendants would not suffer meaningful prejudice because the documents largely confirmed information already available, defendants had requested these types of records, and defendants did not request additional discovery. Plaintiffs also argued that excluding the documents would be an unnecessarily harsh discovery sanction.
Judge Engelmayer directed defendants to file a reply by 5:00 p.m. on April 27, 2021, and directed the Clerk to close the motion pending at docket 45. The text provided does not expressly state that the court granted or denied the request to exclude the documents.
The detailed version
- Colon v. MSMC Residential Realty LLC · No. 1:19-cv-01197
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs’ counsel sent defendants 21 pages of materials on April 15 and 16, 2021. The materials included records from the Social Security Administration, documents from plaintiffs’ workers’ compensation insurer, and a Mount Sinai employment-verification report. The documents concerned the employment of plaintiffs’ decedent, Miguel Gonzalez, and were described as relevant to the question of who was the decedent’s employer.
The letter states that defendants were preparing a motion for summary judgment and that employment was expected to be an important issue. It also states that defendants’ discovery demands requested documents concerning Gonzalez’s employment and workers’ compensation claims and instructed plaintiffs to provide later-discovered materials on a continuing basis.
Plaintiffs’ position
Plaintiffs argued that the production complied with their continuing duty to supplement discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e). They contended that the disclosure was timely, that defendants had not identified meaningful prejudice, and that defendants had not claimed that additional discovery or fact-finding was necessary. Plaintiffs argued that excluding the documents would be an extreme and inappropriate sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
The opinion text provided is principally plaintiffs’ submission to the court. It discusses factors courts consider when deciding whether to preclude evidence, including the reason for any failure to disclose, the importance of the evidence, prejudice, the possibility of a continuance, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.
Court action
The order states that defendants were directed to file a reply by 5:00 p.m. on April 27, 2021. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion pending at docket 45 and marked the order “SO ORDERED.” The text provided does not expressly identify the motion’s title or state that the court granted or denied the request to preclude the documents. Accordingly, the stated court action is the reply deadline and closure of the pending motion, not an expressly stated ruling on the merits of the preclusion request.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.