Vicente v. Ljubica Contractors LLC and Pedro [LNU]
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-00419
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vicente v. Ljubica Contractors, Judge Wang ordered more specific discovery responses and extended the fact-discovery deadline.
The defendants, Ljubica Contractors LLC and Predrag Jankovic, had to provide more specific discovery responses or complete production. The plaintiffs received the revised deadlines and required explanations.
What happened
In Juan R. Vicente, et al. v. Ljubica Contractors LLC and Predrag Jankovic, the court found that the defendants had answered the plaintiffs’ document requests and written questions with generic objections that lacked enough explanation. The court said this violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2), which requires specific responses to document requests.
The defendants were ordered by September 9, 2022, either to finish producing the requested documents and information and confirm that production was complete, or to serve revised responses explaining each objection and proposing a completion date. If requested documents did not exist, the defendants had to confirm without reservation that they had searched for them.
The court also required a joint status letter by September 16, 2022, and extended the deadline for completing fact discovery to October 14, 2022. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang.
The detailed version
- Vicente v. Ljubica Contractors LLC and Pedro [LNU] · No. 1:18-cv-00419
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 22, 2022
Background
The court reviewed ECF Nos. 119 and 127 concerning the defendants’ responses to the plaintiffs’ document requests and interrogatories. Interrogatories are written questions that a party must answer in litigation. The court found that the defendants’ responses used generic, form objections with little specificity or substance.
Ruling and deadlines
The court determined that the responses violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2), which requires a party responding to document requests to state specific objections and indicate whether requested materials are being withheld. By September 9, 2022, the defendants had to choose one of two options: (1) complete production of the requested documents and interrogatory information and represent that production was complete; or (2) serve revised responses and objections to the plaintiffs’ first document requests and first set of interrogatories, including a proposed completion date.
If the defendants served revised responses, they had to explain the reasons for their objections and why they otherwise could not produce the requested documents or information. If requested documents did not exist, the defendants had to confirm without reservation that they had completed a search for them.
Additional case-management orders
The parties had to file a joint status letter by September 16, 2022. The court extended the deadline for completing fact discovery to October 14, 2022. This was a discovery and case-management order; the opinion did not decide the underlying claims’ merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.