Caraway Home, Inc. v. Pattern Brands, Inc.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:20-cv-10469
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Caraway Home v. Pattern Brands, Judge Marrero directed a discovery dispute over document responses and scheduling to the magistrate court.
Caraway Home, Inc. and Pattern Brands, Inc.; the order also concerns other defendants and the management of discovery in the case, but it does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims.
What happened
Caraway Home, Inc. asked the court to require Pattern Brands, Inc. to respond to document requests that Caraway said were overdue. The dispute arose after the court had stayed discovery while Caraway amended its complaint to add patent claims and after further amendments and parties were involved.
Pattern opposed immediate responses and asked for a scheduling conference, a supplemental meeting about the case schedule and patent-related issues, an electronic-discovery protocol, and a protective order. Pattern said discovery should resume only after those matters were addressed, while Caraway said the lack of an agreed electronic-discovery protocol did not excuse Pattern from responding.
On June 1, 2021, Judge Victor Marrero did not decide the discovery dispute in this order. He directed the parties to address it with the magistrate court.
The detailed version
- Caraway Home, Inc. v. Pattern Brands, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10469
- Victor Marrero
- June 1, 2021
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter concerning a discovery dispute. Caraway requested a pre-motion conference about a motion to compel Pattern Brands to respond to Caraway’s first requests for production of documents and things. Caraway said the responses and objections were due May 16, 2021, excluding the period when discovery was stayed, and that Pattern had not provided responses or objections or a date for doing so.
Pattern requested a court scheduling conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Pattern pointed to Caraway’s amended pleadings, which added patent-infringement claims and additional parties, and said the case schedule needed to be reconsidered. Pattern also sought an electronic-discovery protocol, a protective order, and a supplemental conference under Rule 26(f) to address patent-specific scheduling matters.
Parties’ positions
Caraway argued that the parties’ failure to agree on an electronic-discovery protocol did not eliminate Pattern’s obligation to respond to discovery. Caraway also argued that Pattern’s request for a protective order was untimely because it was made after the date set for production. Caraway asked the court to order Pattern to respond to the first document requests.
Pattern argued that discovery should not resume until the parties had a supplemental Rule 26(f) conference, an electronic-discovery protocol had been established, and Caraway confirmed that it did not intend to add another patent claim. Pattern said that a protocol was needed because the requests could require extensive searches of employee emails and that the parties needed to address patent-related deadlines and issues.
Court’s action
The order did not grant or deny Caraway’s request to compel discovery, and it did not resolve the parties’ competing scheduling proposals. The court stated: “The parties are hereby directed to address this dispute to the Magistrate Court.” The order was signed by Judge Victor Marrero on June 1, 2021.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning discovery and case management. The order referred the dispute to the magistrate court without deciding the underlying discovery issues.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.