Adler v. Payward, Inc.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:18-cv-08100
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Adler v. Payward, Inc., Judge Gorenstein ordered plaintiff’s counsel to submit a sworn statement about efforts to resolve a discovery dispute.
Plaintiff’s counsel, the plaintiff, and Payward, Inc. were affected by the court’s directive concerning the discovery dispute.
What happened
In Adler v. Payward, Inc., the court considered letters concerning a dispute over discovery, which is the exchange of information and documents in a lawsuit.
The court said the letters did not identify the law governing requests to reopen discovery. It also found the plaintiff’s application incomplete and unclear about what happened between March 22 and August 23, 2022, including why the plaintiff did not follow an earlier order directing him to raise the dispute properly.
Judge Gorenstein ordered plaintiff’s counsel to file a sworn statement by September 7, 2022, describing efforts to resolve the dispute and attaching written communications in which defense counsel suggested that documents would be produced.
The detailed version
- Adler v. Payward, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-08100
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
The order addressed a discovery dispute raised in Docket Numbers 71, 72, and 74. The court noted that the letters did not cite the law governing requests to reopen discovery.
The court also found the plaintiff’s application incomplete as to certain facts. Although the plaintiff’s reply described much of the dispute’s history, it did not clearly explain what occurred between March 22, 2022, when Judge Crotty was alerted to the dispute, and August 4, 2022, when the plaintiff improperly raised the dispute with Judge Crotty. The plaintiff also did not explain why he failed to follow the court’s June 1, 2022, order directing him to raise the dispute properly until filing Docket Number 71 on August 23, 2022.
Court’s Action
The plaintiff referred generally to defense counsel resolving the issue by saying that documents would be produced, but provided no dates for those statements. The court directed plaintiff’s counsel to file a sworn statement describing all efforts between March 22 and August 23, 2022, to resolve the dispute with the defendant. The statement must describe, or quote verbatim when the communication was written, statements by defense counsel suggesting that further document production would occur. Counsel must attach copies of written communications as exhibits. The filing was due September 7, 2022.
Result
The order directed a further filing and did not state that the court granted or denied a request to reopen discovery.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.