Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2022

Khwaja v. Jobs to Move America

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:19-cv-07070
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Khwaja v. Jobs to Move America, Judge Cronan denied three discovery requests and ordered attorney Louis Johnson Jr. to explain his absence.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and defendants in the discovery dispute, and attorney Louis Johnson Jr., who was ordered to explain his absence and alleged lack of communication.

What happened

Khwaja v. Jobs to Move America concerned the plaintiff’s request for more time and help with several discovery issues after the plaintiff began appearing without a lawyer. The request involved depositions and documents related to the plaintiff’s discrimination claims.

The plaintiff asked to depose attorneys representing the defendants, to compel production of documents, and to take depositions of two third parties. The plaintiff also requested a one-month discovery extension and said the problems were outside the plaintiff’s control. The defendants did not agree to an extension.

Judge Cronan denied all three listed discovery requests. The court also ordered the plaintiff’s attorney of record, Louis Johnson Jr., to explain by May 20, 2022, why the court should not report him to the Grievance Committee for missing the conference and failing to communicate with his client.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Khwaja v. Jobs to Move America · No. 1:19-cv-07070
Judge
John Cronan
Date
May 6, 2022

Background

The plaintiff, who was appearing without a lawyer, submitted a letter requesting a one-month extension of discovery and court intervention concerning three discovery matters. The plaintiff sought permission to depose three attorneys employed by the law firm representing the defendants, production of information about the plaintiff’s work performance and certain email communications, and additional time to take depositions of third parties Sophia Reuss and Lorelie Christie. The plaintiff stated that counsel had become unavailable or unresponsive and that the defendants had not provided deposition dates or the requested information. The defendants did not consent to extending the discovery period.

Court’s Rulings

After a telephone conference, the court ordered the plaintiff’s attorney of record, Louis Johnson Jr., to show cause—that is, to explain—by May 20, 2022, why the court should not report him to the Grievance Committee for failing to appear at the scheduled conference and failing to communicate with his client.

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for permission to depose opposing attorneys because the plaintiff had not made the required showing for taking those depositions. The court denied the request to compel document production because the plaintiff had not identified a document request served on the defendants or shown that the parties had met and discussed the request. The court also denied as premature the request to depose Sophia Reuss and Lorelie Christie because the plaintiff had not been able to locate them. The court stated that the plaintiff could make an appropriate application later if the plaintiff located them, met and conferred with the defendants, and the defendants did not consent to the depositions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.