DiResta v. Biz2Credit Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-00208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In DiResta v. Biz2Credit, Judge Liman denied Timothy DiResta’s request to compel further initial disclosures.
Timothy DiResta, Biz2Credit Inc., and Shujah A. Awan, concerning the defendants’ initial disclosures.
What happened
In DiResta v. Biz2Credit Inc., plaintiff Timothy DiResta, who was representing himself, asked for a conference or an order requiring Biz2Credit Inc. and Shujah A. Awan to provide more information in their initial disclosures.
The court explained that the rules allow a party to identify relevant documents by category and location instead of providing copies. The defendants chose that option, and the court said they were not required to produce the documents referenced in their disclosures. The court also found that the requirements for compelling disclosure were not met.
Judge Liman denied the request and directed the clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- DiResta v. Biz2Credit Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00208
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 4, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Timothy DiResta, who was representing himself and is a lawyer, requested a pre-motion conference or an order compelling defendants Biz2Credit Inc. and Shujah A. Awan to provide further responses concerning their initial disclosures. The request was filed at Dkt. No. 55.
Court’s reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) gives a party making initial disclosures the choice to provide copies of relevant documents or to describe the documents by category and location. The defendants chose to describe the documents rather than provide copies.
The court held that Rule 26(a) did not require the defendants to produce the actual documents referenced in their initial disclosures. The court also stated that Rule 37(a)(3) permits a motion to compel disclosure only in specified circumstances, which were not present here. In addition, the court found that DiResta had not satisfied Rule 37(a)(1)’s procedural requirements.
Disposition
The court denied DiResta’s request. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 55. The order addressed the disclosure and motion-compelling procedures; it did not decide the underlying claims described in the case caption.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.