Gannon v. 124 East 40th Street LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-00361
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gannon v. 124 East 40th Street LLC, Judge Schofield ordered a responsive letter on a discovery dispute; the order does not decide sanctions or the requested conference.
Stephen Gannon and the defendants in the action, including 124 East 40th Street LLC, were affected by the order requiring Defendant to submit a responsive letter.
What happened
In Stephen Gannon v. 124 East 40th Street LLC, et al., Plaintiff Stephen Gannon’s lawyer asked for a telephone conference about alleged failures by Defendants to respond properly to discovery requests.
The letter said Defendants had provided no substantive answers to interrogatories and no documents, and had not supplemented their responses as allegedly promised. Plaintiff asked to strike Defendants’ answer as a sanction and to award attorney’s fees.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered Defendant to file a responsive letter of no more than three pages by September 27, 2022. The order does not state that the Court granted the requested conference, imposed sanctions, or awarded fees.
The detailed version
- Gannon v. 124 East 40th Street LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00361
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 22, 2022
Background
The provided text contains Plaintiff’s letter requesting a pre-motion discovery conference and the Court’s brief response. Plaintiff’s counsel said the parties exchanged initial disclosures on June 8, 2022, and that Plaintiff sent discovery requests that day. According to the letter, Defendants initially contended that the requests were not properly served because they were not sent by regular mail. Plaintiff’s counsel said hard copies were mailed on July 29, 2022.
The letter also referred to an earlier Court order requiring Defendants to respond within 30 days of effective service so that depositions could occur before the fact-discovery deadline. Plaintiff’s counsel reported that Defendants sent responses by email on July 26, 2022, but that those responses contained no substantive answers to interrogatories and produced no documents. Counsel further said the parties discussed the alleged deficiencies on September 14, 2022, and that Defendants did not provide the additional responses Plaintiff expected before the stated end of fact discovery.
Plaintiff’s Request
Plaintiff asked the Court to hold a telephone pre-motion discovery conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and the Court’s local procedures. Plaintiff sought permission to file a motion for discovery sanctions, including striking Defendants’ answer and awarding attorney’s fees for seeking Court intervention.
The letter argued that Defendants improperly relied on a local rule concerning contention interrogatories. It also asserted that documents about permission to install an accessibility ramp at the defendants’ building were relevant and had not been produced. These statements are presented as Plaintiff’s arguments; the order does not resolve their accuracy.
Court’s Action
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered Defendant to file a responsive letter, no longer than three pages, by September 27, 2022. The provided order does not grant or deny the requested pre-motion conference, does not impose discovery sanctions, and does not award attorney’s fees.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning discovery management and a potential sanctions motion. It does not decide the underlying dispute or determine whether Defendants violated their discovery obligations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.