Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 8, 2022

Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc.

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:19-cv-07541
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Judge Cave granted requests for a pre-motion conference about a proposed subpoena dispute.

Who this affects

The order affects the Bernstein plaintiffs, Cengage Learning, Inc., and third-party Dr. Jonathan McDonald by setting a conference concerning a proposed deposition-subpoena dispute. It does not decide whether the subpoena will be blocked or delayed.

What happened

In Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc., third-party Dr. Jonathan McDonald and Cengage asked for a pre-motion conference about their anticipated request to block or delay a deposition subpoena served on Dr. McDonald.

The court granted the requests for a pre-motion conference, scheduled a telephone conference for September 28, 2022, and directed the Clerk to close the two related filings. The order did not decide whether the subpoena should be blocked or delayed.

Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the order on September 8, 2022.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-07541
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Sept. 8, 2022

Background

Dr. Jonathan McDonald and Cengage Learning, Inc. filed letter-motions seeking a pre-motion conference under the court's rules. Their letter explained that they anticipated asking the court to block or delay a deposition subpoena that the plaintiffs had served on Dr. McDonald, a former Cengage employee and nonparty to the lawsuit.

The letter argued that the proposed deposition would burden Dr. McDonald and his current employer, and that the requested information could be obtained through discovery from the parties. It also argued that the information concerned the merits of the plaintiffs' royalty-related claims rather than the issues needed for class certification. These arguments were presented in support of a potential future motion; the order did not resolve them.

Order

The court granted the parties' letter-motions seeking a pre-motion conference, identified as ECF Nos. 149 and 151. It scheduled a telephone conference for Wednesday, September 28, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF Nos. 149 and 151.

The order did not grant or deny a motion to quash or defer Dr. McDonald's deposition subpoena. It only arranged the requested pre-motion conference.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.