Pallasite Asset Trust v. Key Associates and Appraisal Services, Inc.
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:21-cv-02796
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pallasite Asset Trust v. Key Associates, Judge Seibel refused to allow pre-answer discovery and directed termination of docket entry 29.
The plaintiff, Key Associates and Appraisal Services, Inc., Anthony J. Bisignano, and their counsel were affected by the court’s refusal to allow discovery before an answer.
What happened
In Pallasite Asset Trust v. Key Associates and Appraisal Services, Inc., and Anthony J. Bisignano, the plaintiff sought to ask the defendants to admit facts before the defendants answered an amended complaint. The defendants opposed that request, noting that the plaintiff had permission to amend the complaint and that a schedule existed for a motion challenging the complaint.
The defendants argued that discovery should generally wait until the court decided any motion challenging the complaint’s legal sufficiency. They also said that requests for admissions are meant to remove uncontested issues before trial, not to gather information for an anticipated motion to dismiss an amended complaint that had not yet been filed.
Judge Seibel stated that she would not allow discovery before the defendants answered. She encouraged the lawyers to discuss the requested admission and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 29.
The detailed version
- Pallasite Asset Trust v. Key Associates and Appraisal Services, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-02796
- Cathy Seibel
- June 16, 2021
Background
The defendants’ counsel submitted a letter opposing the plaintiff’s request for a pre-answer request for admissions. A request for admissions is a discovery device that asks another party to admit or deny specified facts. The defendants said the plaintiff had been granted leave to file an amended complaint, and that deadlines had been set for the defendants’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The relevant deadlines had not passed.
Parties’ Positions
The defendants argued that allowing a request for admissions before the amended complaint was filed would not advance the case and would be inappropriate and prejudicial. They cited authority stating that merits discovery should normally wait until the court resolves a pre-answer motion challenging the legal sufficiency of a complaint. They also argued that requests for admissions are intended to expedite trial by removing uncontested issues, not to obtain information for opposing a proposed motion to dismiss an amended complaint that had not yet been filed. The defendants stated that they would likely seek a protective order if the request were served.
The excerpt does not provide the plaintiff’s written arguments or identify the precise admissions the plaintiff sought. The defendants’ letter says that the plaintiff had requested pre-answer admissions, and Judge Seibel encouraged the parties to discuss what admission the plaintiff was seeking.
Ruling
Judge Cathy Seibel stated, “I am not going to allow pre-answer discovery.” She encouraged the plaintiff’s and defendants’ counsel to discuss whether they could reach a stipulation or another resolution that would streamline the amended complaint or motion practice. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 29. The excerpt does not label this action as granting or denying a specific motion; it states that pre-answer discovery would not be allowed and that docket entry 29 was terminated.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.