Rekor Systems, Inc. v. Loughlin
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-07767
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rekor Systems v. Loughlin, Judge Liman denied Defendants’ request for additional data-room discovery after the discovery deadline.
Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs Suzanne Loughlin, Harry Rhulen, and James Satterfield, and Counterclaim Plaintiff CrisisRisk Strategies LLC, were denied additional data-room discovery from Plaintiff Rekor Systems, Inc.
What happened
In Rekor Systems, Inc. v. Loughlin, Defendants asked Rekor Systems to produce all documents from an electronic data room, provide login credentials, and clarify whether an activity report showed all data-room activity.
The court noted that discovery had closed on April 8, 2022, and trial was scheduled for February 13, 2023. Defendants had requested the information earlier and had enough time to challenge Rekor’s production during discovery. The court also found that the request came too late, was opposed, could prejudice Rekor, and might require reopening discovery.
The court denied the motion. Judge Lewis J. Liman concluded that Defendants had not shown good cause for seeking the information after discovery closed, and that a change in defense counsel did not justify the late request.
The detailed version
- Rekor Systems, Inc. v. Loughlin · No. 1:19-cv-07767
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 7, 2022
Background
Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs Suzanne Loughlin, Harry Rhulen, and James Satterfield, and Counterclaim Plaintiff CrisisRisk Strategies LLC, moved for an order requiring Plaintiff Rekor Systems, Inc. to take three actions concerning an electronic data room used in connection with the transaction involved in the litigation:
- Produce all documents contained in the data room.
- Provide login credentials so Defendants could verify the data room’s contents.
- Confirm whether an activity report prepared by a third party recorded all activity in the data room described by Rekor witnesses Robert Berman and Riaz Latifullah. If the report was incomplete, Defendants sought additional logs.
Defendants argued that the activity report conflicted with the deposition testimony of Berman and Latifullah.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that discovery had closed on April 8, 2022. Trial was scheduled for February 13, 2023, and the proposed joint pretrial order was due on January 25, 2023. Defendants did not show why they could not have sought the requested relief during the lengthy discovery period, which included several extensions.
The court applied the standard for reopening discovery or allowing discovery after a court-imposed deadline. That analysis considers, among other factors, how close trial is, whether the request is opposed, possible prejudice to the other party, the moving party’s diligence, whether the need for more discovery was foreseeable, and whether the discovery would likely produce relevant evidence.
The court found that Defendants satisfied none of those standards. Trial was only a few months away, Rekor opposed the request, and Rekor would be prejudiced if the motion were granted. The principal witnesses had already testified, and any new information would require discovery to be reopened. The court also emphasized that Defendants had requested the information as early as April 2020 and that Rekor had produced documents in response. If Defendants were dissatisfied with that production, they could have moved to compel during the time allowed for discovery.
The court further stated that the appearance of new counsel for Defendants in July 2022 did not establish good cause because a change in litigation strategy was not enough to justify reopening discovery.
Disposition
The court denied Defendants’ motion. Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that the request, made six months after discovery closed and while the parties should have been preparing for trial, was too late.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.