G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Perez
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-06210
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In G & G Closed Circuit Events v. Perez, Judge Failla extended discovery and denied Plaintiff’s requests to file a reply and quash a subpoena.
The order affected G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, Defendants Juan Perez, Krystian Santini, and Twenty Ones Incorporated, and non-party DAZN US, LLC. It extended the parties’ fact-discovery deadline and denied Plaintiff’s requests concerning Defendants’ subpoena to DAZN.
What happened
In G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Perez, the court addressed the discovery schedule and Plaintiff’s effort to stop Defendants from obtaining documents from non-party DAZN US, LLC. The subpoena sought communications and agreements concerning a November 2, 2019 boxing match and this litigation.
The court extended the deadline for completing fact discovery to May 30, 2022, but said it would grant no further discovery extensions. It denied Plaintiff’s request to file a late reply and denied Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena. The court also ordered the parties to report whether they intended to seek summary judgment.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that Plaintiff had not shown that the subpoena required disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected information. The court said Plaintiff’s general assertions about privacy, confidentiality, and work product were not enough, and noted that DAZN could separately challenge the subpoena.
The detailed version
- G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Perez · No. 1:21-cv-06210
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 21, 2022
Background
At a pretrial conference, the court reserved decision on three matters: whether to extend the deadline for completing fact discovery, whether Plaintiff could file a reply supporting its motion to quash Defendants’ subpoena, and the merits of that motion. The subpoena was directed to non-party DAZN US, LLC and sought information responsive to requests 10 through 15, including communications and agreements between Plaintiff and DAZN concerning a November 2, 2019 televised boxing match and this litigation.
Discovery deadline
The court extended the parties’ deadline to complete fact discovery to May 30, 2022. The parties had stated that neither side intended to conduct expert discovery. Because the case-management plan had reserved time for expert discovery that was no longer needed, the court found that using that time for fact discovery was appropriate. The court stated that it would not grant any further discovery extensions and warned Plaintiff’s counsel that future failures to comply with court orders would not be tolerated.
Request to file a reply
The court denied Plaintiff’s request to file a reply brief supporting its motion to quash. Under Local Civil Rule 6.1, the reply was due on April 18, 2022. The court found that Plaintiff had not shown a sufficient reason to excuse the late filing. It also noted that, when given an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the subpoena, Plaintiff addressed other issues instead.
Motion to quash
The court denied Plaintiff’s motion to quash under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3). A motion to quash asks the court to cancel or limit a subpoena. Because Plaintiff was not the subpoena’s recipient, it needed to show a privilege, privacy interest, or proprietary interest in the requested documents. The court held that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that the subpoena required disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected information.
Plaintiff argued that the requests implicated privileged, private, and proprietary materials because they identified G & G by name and were broad enough that some documents might be protected as attorney work product. The court held that those general assertions were insufficient. Plaintiff had submitted no declaration or other evidence identifying protected information in DAZN’s possession. The court added that its denial of Plaintiff’s motion did not prevent DAZN from challenging the subpoena if appropriate.
Conclusion
The court extended fact discovery to May 30, 2022; denied Plaintiff’s request to file a reply; and denied Plaintiff’s motion to quash. It directed the parties to file a joint letter by June 14, 2022, confirming that discovery had concluded and stating whether they intended to file summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.