Vasquez v. MobileShack Inc.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:19-cv-10371
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Vasquez v. MobileShack, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied without prejudice defendants’ discovery application and allowed them to renew it after counsel conferred.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs, the defendants MobileShack Inc., Avi Levy, and Victor Levy, and their attorneys by requiring an immediate conference and setting conditions for any renewed discovery-dispute application.
What happened
In Vasquez v. MobileShack Inc., the defendants said the plaintiffs had not provided responses or documents requested in discovery, despite repeated promises. The defendants asked the court to order production, impose sanctions or award fees, or extend the discovery deadline.
The defendants said the missing information concerned the plaintiffs’ work schedules, pay, overnight shifts, and whether Victor Levy owned or supervised the business. They also said the plaintiffs had produced about 30 pages during settlement discussions, but no complete discovery production.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied the application without prejudice because the letter stated that documents had been produced. Judge Gorenstein directed the attorneys to confer immediately by telephone and allowed the defendants to submit a new letter if a dispute remained, provided it followed the court’s filing practices.
The detailed version
- Vasquez v. MobileShack Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10371
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Mar. 17, 2022
Background
Defendants MobileShack Inc., Avi Levy, and Victor Levy asked the court to intervene in a discovery dispute. Their counsel stated that the plaintiffs had not provided responses and objections to document requests served around September 27, 2021, and had not produced the requested documents despite several promised production dates. The parties had previously delayed discovery while they pursued settlement, but the December 20, 2021 settlement conference did not resolve the case.
The defendants asserted that the missing discovery included communications, schedules, pay stubs, and evidence concerning alleged overnight work. They also said the plaintiffs had not produced evidence supporting their claim that Victor Levy was an owner, supervisor, or manager of the business. The defendants maintained that Avi Levy alone owned and supervised the business and that the business closed by 9:00 p.m. at the latest. The letter stated that plaintiffs had produced approximately 30 pages in connection with the settlement conference, but defense counsel said the office had not received the broader production or responses to the document requests.
Relief Requested
The defendants asked the court to order the plaintiffs to respond to the document requests by a date certain and to impose terminating sanctions or award the fees incurred in making the application. Alternatively, they requested an extension of the discovery deadline from March 15, 2022, to April 30, 2022, and an extension of related pretrial deadlines.
Ruling
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied the application without prejudice. The court explained that, in light of the claim that documents had been produced, the attorneys should confer immediately again by telephone. If a dispute remained, the defendants could file a new letter, provided it complied with paragraph 2.A of the court’s Individual Practices.
The court also stated that Diane D. Bernard remained counsel of record and had equal responsibility for responding to court directives. Because Bernard was aware that Bart Pittari had provided an incorrect email address to the docketing system, the court made Bernard responsible for notifying Pittari of all filings until the error was corrected. The endorsement did not decide the parties’ wage-and-hour claims or impose the requested sanctions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.