Mateer v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-00740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mateer v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Judge Gorenstein scheduled a conference and set procedures for unresolved discovery disputes and confidentiality-order negotiations.
The plaintiffs, Peloton Interactive, Inc., and their attorneys or unrepresented parties were affected by the conference schedule and the procedures for meeting and conferring, submitting joint letters, and addressing a confidentiality order.
What happened
In Mateer v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., the court scheduled an August 17, 2022 conference about matters raised in letters filed at Docket 68 and Docket 75. The court said it expected to decide those matters at the conference unless a party showed good cause for formal written briefing.
The court said it would not address discovery disputes in Docket 76 and Docket 85, or certain discovery issues in Docket 68 and Docket 75, because the parties had not made enough effort to resolve them together. It directed the parties to confer again and, if disputes remained, submit a joint letter explaining each side’s position. The court also directed the parties to try immediately to agree on a confidentiality order.
The order set the conference and gave instructions for presenting any remaining discovery disputes; it did not decide the underlying disputes. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.
The detailed version
- Mateer v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00740
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 11, 2022
Purpose of the Order
The order scheduled a conference for August 17, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. to address matters raised in letters at Docket 68 and Docket 75. The court stated that it intended to decide those matters at the conference unless a party showed good cause before the conference for requiring formal briefing.
Discovery Disputes
The court stated that it did not plan to address discovery disputes raised in Docket 76 and Docket 85, or discovery disputes raised in Docket 68 and Docket 75 to the extent those letters included them. The court was not persuaded that the parties had made sufficient efforts to meet and confer—meaning discuss the disputes with each other—to try to resolve the issues.
Instead of requiring a new letter from the plaintiffs alone, the court directed the parties to confer again by telephone or in person. If disputes remained, the parties were to file a jointly prepared letter describing, issue by issue, each side’s position in detail. The court required each side to have an opportunity to respond to the other side’s draft and to remain available for telephone consultation. The court stated that it might decide any remaining disputes from the joint letter alone, without holding another conference.
Confidentiality Order
The court also noted that some delay in document production might be caused by the parties’ inability to agree on a confidentiality order. It directed the parties to try to resolve that issue immediately. If they could not agree, each side was to submit a proposed confidentiality order, and the court would issue one.
The court stated that the parties did not need to agree in advance about the categories of documents that could be designated confidential. It indicated that an order could permit a producing party to designate materials that it believed in good faith were entitled to protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), while leaving the ultimate propriety of particular designations for later consideration.
Disposition
The court scheduled the conference and established procedures for further handling of the parties’ discovery disputes and confidentiality-order issue. The order did not resolve the underlying discovery disputes. It was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.