Red Rock Sourcing LLC v. JGX, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-01054
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Red Rock Sourcing LLC v. JGX, LLC, Judge Cronan ordered Triple Five to produce responsive documents despite other defendants’ prior productions.
Red Rock Sourcing LLC and Coronado Distributing LLC, which sought discovery, and Triple Five Worldwide, LLC, which was ordered to produce responsive documents.
What happened
In Red Rock Sourcing LLC v. JGX, LLC, the plaintiffs challenged Triple Five Worldwide, LLC’s responses to requests for documents. They argued that Triple Five improperly refused to produce documents about its relationships with affiliated entities and CFSB, and improperly relied on documents produced by other defendants.
The plaintiffs asked the court to require a broader search and production, supplemental responses, and substantial completion of production before Triple Five’s scheduled deposition. The court’s order states that Triple Five had made representations about two of the document requests and directed the plaintiffs to report whether any disputes remained.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered Triple Five to produce all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control, even if another defendant had already produced them. The order also directed the plaintiffs to file a letter by July 15, 2022, identifying any remaining discovery disputes.
The detailed version
- Red Rock Sourcing LLC v. JGX, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-01054
- John Cronan
- July 14, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs Red Rock Sourcing LLC and Coronado Distributing LLC submitted a letter motion under the court’s discovery procedures concerning Defendant Triple Five Worldwide, LLC’s responses and objections to the plaintiffs’ first requests for production. The requests sought documents and communications concerning Triple Five’s relationships with affiliated entities and its relationship with CFSB. The plaintiffs also stated that Triple Five had refused to produce documents that had already been produced by other defendants.
The plaintiffs argued that Triple Five had its own duty under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 to produce responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control. They also argued that Triple Five’s proposed production concerning CFSB was too narrow and that its general objections improperly limited discovery. The plaintiffs requested an order requiring broader production, supplemental responses, a full search for responsive materials, and substantial completion of production by July 18, 2022, to assist with preparing for Triple Five’s scheduled deposition.
Court’s Order
The court ordered Triple Five to produce any and all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control, regardless of whether another defendant in the action had previously produced those documents. The order cited decisions explaining that a party generally cannot avoid its own discovery obligations merely because the requesting party may already have the same information or documents from another source.
The court further stated that Triple Five had made representations in a July 14, 2022 response letter concerning Requests for Production Nos. 7 and 8. In light of those representations, the court directed the plaintiffs to file a letter by July 15, 2022, advising whether any discovery disputes remained for the court to address. The parties were strongly advised to continue meeting and conferring as appropriate. The order was signed by United States District Judge John P. Cronan.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.