Chen v. Dun Huang Corp
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-11883
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chen v. Dun Huang, Judge Moses granted a discovery conference but did not yet order depositions or extend discovery.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Chen et al. v. Dun Huang Corp et al. were affected. The court scheduled a discovery conference, set letter deadlines, and required the plaintiffs to send specific deposition notices before the conference.
What happened
In Chen et al. v. Dun Huang Corp et al., the plaintiffs asked the court to require defendants to provide deposition dates and to extend discovery by 45 days. They said defense counsel had not responded to repeated requests and that the depositions were needed to investigate defendants’ practices, policies, notices, and name lists.
The court granted the application only to the extent that it scheduled a discovery conference for May 16, 2022. The court required defendants to respond by May 4 and plaintiffs to reply by May 6. It also directed plaintiffs to promptly send deposition notices for each proposed witness and specify the requested time; any corporate deposition notice had to describe the topics with reasonable particularity.
Judge Barbara C. Moses issued the order. The order noted that plaintiffs apparently had not served written deposition notices and that their request was unclear about which remaining defendants they wanted to depose. It did not itself order defendants to appear for depositions or grant the requested 45-day discovery extension.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Dun Huang Corp · No. 1:19-cv-11883
- George Daniels
- May 2, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs filed a letter motion seeking to compel depositions of defendants and to extend the discovery period by 45 days. They stated that they had repeatedly contacted defense counsel beginning in February 2022 to obtain deposition dates, but counsel had not provided dates or responded to later emails and calls. Plaintiffs asserted that the depositions were relevant to defendants’ workplace practices and policies, the display of a notice at defendants’ place of business, and the preparation of an updated name list.
Plaintiffs also stated that an earlier order had extended discovery to 45 days after the end of a 60-day period for potential plaintiffs to opt into a conditionally certified collective action. According to plaintiffs, that schedule made April 18, 2022 the end of the discovery period. They asked that the additional 45 days begin when the court ruled on their motion. The opinion text contains plaintiffs’ arguments about the relevance and need for the requested discovery; it does not describe a substantive ruling on the underlying claims.
Ruling
The court marked the application GRANTED to the extent that it would conduct a discovery conference on May 16, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 20A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse. Defendants’ responding letter was due May 4, 2022, and plaintiffs’ reply was due May 6, 2022.
The court noted that plaintiffs did not appear to have served written deposition notices and that the motion letter was vague about which remaining defendants plaintiffs sought to depose. The court directed plaintiffs, promptly after receiving the order, to email defendants deposition notices for each proposed witness and to state how much time they sought with each witness. If plaintiffs proposed a corporate deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), the notice had to describe the matters for examination with reasonable particularity. Plaintiffs were required to attach the notices to their reply letter.
The order did not state that defendants were compelled to appear for depositions, and it did not grant the requested 45-day extension of discovery. The court’s action concerned scheduling and managing discovery, so this is a procedural order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.