Sweigert v. Goodman
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-08653
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sweigert v. Goodman, Magistrate Judge Aaron denied a discovery-stay motion and set deadlines for pleadings, discovery responses, sanctions, and a dispositive motion.
Defendant Jason Goodman must file an amended answer and respond to discovery; Plaintiff George Sweigert must respond to specified discovery or limit his damages position. The order also sets deadlines for the anticipated dispositive motion.
What happened
In Sweigert v. Goodman, the court set deadlines after a telephone conference with the parties. Defendant Jason Goodman had to file an amended answer by May 11, 2021.
The court denied Goodman’s motion to stay discovery and ordered him to respond to George Sweigert’s discovery requests by May 18, 2021. Sweigert also had to respond to specified discovery requests or stipulate that he would pursue only defamation-per-se claims and seek no more than nominal damages.
The order warned that Goodman’s failure could lead to a recommendation for default judgment and that Sweigert’s failure could lead to sanctions. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron also set deadlines for Goodman’s anticipated dispositive motion and the parties’ briefing. The order did not decide the merits of the claims.
The detailed version
- Sweigert v. Goodman · No. 1:18-cv-08653
- Valerie Caproni
- May 4, 2021
Background
After a telephone conference with the parties, the court issued an order addressing an amended answer, discovery obligations, possible sanctions, and the schedule for an anticipated dispositive motion. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail, but it refers to Plaintiff George Sweigert’s possible pursuit of defamation-per-se claims and damages.
Order
The court ordered Defendant Jason Goodman to file an amended answer no later than May 11, 2021.
The court denied Goodman’s motion to stay discovery. It ordered Goodman to respond by May 18, 2021, to Sweigert’s discovery requests as required by an earlier March 11, 2021 order. The court stated that failure to respond could result in a recommendation to the district judge that default judgment be entered against Goodman.
The court ordered Sweigert, by May 18, 2021, either to respond to Goodman’s specified discovery requests or to file a stipulation stating that he would pursue only defamation-per-se claims and would not seek damages beyond nominal damages. The court stated that failure to do so could result in sanctions.
The court set the following schedule for Goodman’s anticipated dispositive motion: the motion was due June 1, 2021; Sweigert’s opposition was due July 1, 2021; and Goodman’s reply was due July 15, 2021. The Clerk of Court was asked to mail a copy of the order to Goodman, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Effect of the Order
This was a case-management and discovery order. It denied the motion to stay discovery, imposed deadlines, and described possible consequences for noncompliance. It did not decide the merits of the claims or enter default judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.