Brooklyn Music Distribution, Inc. v. Vydia, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-01220
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vaeso v. High Peak, Judge Engelmayer granted a discovery letter-motion and gave High Peak until September 12 to respond.
Vaeso, Inc., third-party defendant Impactiva 8. de R.L., and High Peak Software Inc.; the order specifically required High Peak to respond by September 12, 2022 if it intended to contest the discovery letter.
What happened
In Vaeso, Inc. v. High Peak Software Inc., Vaeso and third-party defendant Impactiva asked the court to address High Peak’s alleged discovery failures. They said High Peak produced emails in difficult-to-use formats, withheld attachments and financial information, and failed to produce communications about software problems and the project.
The letter asked for court intervention under the federal discovery rules. The opinion text does not show that the court decided whether these allegations were ultimately true or ordered specific documents to be produced.
The court said it was dismayed and intended to resolve the issues quickly. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ordered that High Peak must respond by September 12, 2022, or the court would treat the letter as unopposed, and the court marked the request “Granted.”
The detailed version
- Brooklyn Music Distribution, Inc. v. Vydia, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01220
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 7, 2022
Background
Vaeso, Inc. and third-party defendant Impactiva 8. de R.L. submitted a letter-motion seeking a court conference about discovery disputes with High Peak Software Inc. The letter stated that the parties had tried to resolve the issues without court intervention.
Discovery issues raised
The letter identified three categories of alleged deficiencies:
- High Peak allegedly produced emails as unsearchable PDF files, separated them from attachments, removed or damaged metadata, and renamed native-format documents. Vaeso and Impactiva argued that the documents should be produced in the form in which they were kept in the ordinary course of business.
- High Peak allegedly refused to provide financial information for August 2018 through January 2022, even though it asserted a claim for profits allegedly lost during that period.
- High Peak allegedly failed to produce internal and external communications concerning software bugs, patches, errors, project delays, and the scope of work. High Peak reportedly said that it could not locate some of these materials and that they were held on a platform owned and controlled by Vaeso. The letter asserted that other responsive communications had been found in email productions.
The letter also described documents that Vaeso and Impactiva said they had produced or were prepared to produce. These statements describe the parties’ positions; the order does not make findings resolving the factual dispute.
Court’s action
The court stated that it was “dismayed” by the reported discovery lapses and intended to act quickly. It directed High Peak to respond to the letter by September 12, 2022, if it intended to do so. Otherwise, the court would treat the letter at Docket 70 as unopposed. The court then marked the request “Granted” and entered the order. The text provided does not show a ruling requiring particular discovery documents or deciding the underlying claims.
Disposition
The court granted the discovery letter-motion. This was a procedural discovery ruling, not a decision on the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.