Hernandez v. Warwick Properties. Inc.

Background

The plaintiff requested a pre-motion conference about two anticipated discovery motions. First, the plaintiff planned to seek documents and the deposition of Paulo Vidal, identified as a principal of Five Star Builders, Inc., a fourth third-party defendant. Second, the plaintiff planned to seek sanctions against A M Framing, LLC and to strike A M Framing’s answer. The opinion states that Five Star had previously received a default judgment on liability and had not appeared in the action.

Court’s analysis

The court denied the request for a pre-motion conference as unnecessary. The court said the plaintiff could file the anticipated motion to compel, but directed the plaintiff to provide proof that the August 5, 2022 subpoena had been served on Vidal, describe the attempts to contact him personally, and submit a proposed order.

As to sanctions, the court was not persuaded by the parties’ submissions that it would grant a motion to impose sanctions and strike A M Framing’s answer. The opinion says A M Framing allegedly destroyed relevant documents when it dissolved, but also says A M Framing confirmed the subcontracting relationship with Five Star, produced two witnesses for depositions, and appeared willing to help locate Vidal. The court also noted other testimony and photographs concerning safety equipment.

Disposition

The court denied the pre-motion conference request. It did not grant the anticipated motion to compel or the anticipated sanctions motion; instead, it permitted the plaintiff to file the motion to compel subject to specified submissions and stated that it could reconsider sanctions if A M Framing later harmed the plaintiff through additional conduct or failed to cooperate in discovery. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti reminded counsel to cooperate and act courteously during discovery.