Crumwell v. Gold Coast Creations, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-07690
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Crumwell v. Gold Coast Creations, Judge Cave extended the defendant’s deadline to respond to a discovery dispute and warned of possible consequences.
Gold Coast Creations, Inc. was required to respond to the discovery dispute by April 15, 2022. Denise Crumwell’s discovery requests remained pending.
What happened
In Crumwell v. Gold Coast Creations, Inc., Denise Crumwell asked for a conference about her request that Gold Coast provide overdue written discovery. She also asked, alternatively, that the court strike Gold Coast’s answer or prevent it from presenting evidence at trial.
The court had scheduled a discovery conference and ordered Gold Coast to respond by March 31, 2022. Gold Coast had not filed the response or asked for more time. The court extended the deadline one time, requiring a response by April 15, 2022.
Judge Sarah L. Cave warned that failing to respond could lead to the relief Crumwell requested. The order did not decide whether to compel discovery, strike the answer, or preclude evidence.
The detailed version
- Crumwell v. Gold Coast Creations, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07690
- John Koeltl
- Apr. 14, 2022
Background
Denise Crumwell requested a discovery conference concerning her request for an order compelling Gold Coast Creations, Inc. to provide outstanding written discovery. In the alternative, she asked the court to strike Gold Coast’s answer or prevent Gold Coast from offering evidence at trial. The opinion identifies Crumwell as acting on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons.
On March 30, 2022, the court granted Crumwell’s request for a discovery conference, scheduled the conference for April 21, 2022, and directed Gold Coast to file a response by March 31, 2022. As of April 14, Gold Coast had not filed a compliant response and had not requested an extension.
Court’s Action
The court extended Gold Coast’s response deadline as a one-time courtesy. It directed Gold Coast to file its response by April 15, 2022. The court warned that failing to file a response could result in awarding the relief Crumwell sought, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not grant or deny Crumwell’s request to compel discovery, strike Gold Coast’s answer, or preclude Gold Coast from offering evidence. It addressed only the response deadline and warning regarding the pending discovery dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.