Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 9, 2021

Hancock v. HF Holdings, Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:21-cv-01812
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hancock v. HF Holdings, Judge Broderick ordered more explanation for a request for expedited discovery.

Who this affects

The order directly affected plaintiff Roxanne Hancock by requiring her to provide more information about her expedited-discovery request. It concerned the pending case against HF Holdings, Inc., and the other named defendants.

What happened

In Hancock v. HF Holdings, Inc., Roxanne Hancock asked the court to allow discovery sooner than normally permitted in the case.

Hancock said the case was a class action, but the court found that she had not explained why that fact justified expedited discovery. The court also noted that she had already obtained a certificate of default.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Hancock to submit, by May 14, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why good cause existed for the request.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hancock v. HF Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01812
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
May 9, 2021

Background

Plaintiff Roxanne Hancock, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, sent a May 6, 2021 letter asking for expedited discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d). Expedited discovery is discovery allowed before the usual timing in a case.

Court's Analysis

The court stated that courts in the Southern District of New York use a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard when deciding whether to allow expedited discovery. Hancock offered no reason for the request other than that the case was brought as a class action. The court also noted that Hancock had already obtained a certificate of default.

Order

The court ordered Hancock to submit, by May 14, 2021, a letter of no more than three pages explaining why good cause existed for expedited discovery. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the discovery request.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.