Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 30, 2022

Gannon v. 265 W. 37th Street LLC

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:22-cv-00619
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gannon v. 265 W. 37th Street LLC, Judge Failla ordered plaintiff’s counsel to explain missed mediation and discovery deadlines and terminated a pending motion.

Who this affects

The order directly affects the plaintiff’s counsel, who must explain the missed mediation and discovery obligations; it also concerns the plaintiff and the defendant companies involved in the discovery dispute.

What happened

In Gannon v. 265 W. 37th Street LLC, the defendants asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute. They said the plaintiff had not provided required medical-record authorizations or responded to their written questions and document requests by the deadlines in the case schedule.

The defendants also told the court that mediation had not occurred despite the court’s referral and that their efforts to communicate with plaintiff’s counsel had not produced a response. They asked the court to order the plaintiff to provide the discovery by a specific date and to grant other appropriate relief.

Judge Failla ordered plaintiff’s counsel to file a letter by September 7, 2022, explaining the failure to participate in mediation in good faith and the failure to meet the discovery deadlines. She also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket number 36.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gannon v. 265 W. 37th Street LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00619
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Aug. 30, 2022

Background

The defendants submitted a letter about a discovery dispute. They said the parties’ proposed case-management plan required the plaintiff to provide medical-record authorizations by July 1, 2022, and set July 15, 2022, as the deadline for serving interrogatories and document requests. The court approved that plan after the parties’ initial pretrial conference.

The case was also referred to the court’s mediation program. According to the defendants’ letter, defense counsel contacted plaintiff’s counsel about a settlement demand and possible mediators, but mediation did not occur. The defendants further stated that they served interrogatories and document requests on July 15, 2022, but had not received the plaintiff’s responses by the August 14 deadline. They also said the plaintiff had not provided the required medical-record authorizations or served written discovery on the defendants.

Court’s Action

The court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to file a letter by September 7, 2022, explaining why counsel had disregarded the court’s order to participate in mediation in good faith and the discovery deadlines in the case-management plan and scheduling order. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket number 36. The opinion does not state that the court ordered the plaintiff to provide the requested discovery by a new deadline.

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.