PayVicki LLC v. Payvision US Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-08939
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In PayVicki LLC v. Payvision US Inc., Judge Castel granted Payvision US an extension to report remaining discovery disputes until October 24, 2022.
Payvision US Inc. received an extension of its deadline to report remaining discovery disputes; the document also concerns PayVicki LLC’s discovery responses.
What happened
PayVicki LLC v. Payvision US Inc. concerns a discovery deadline in an ongoing federal case. Payvision US Inc. told the court that PayVicki had provided responses to document requests, written questions, and requests to admit by the court’s October 7 deadline, but that the responses were deficient.
Payvision US Inc. said PayVicki had used objections that were no longer available because its responses were late, denied most requests to admit, and improperly objected to a question asking it to explain the facts supporting its responses. Payvision US Inc. and PayVicki’s lawyer agreed that PayVicki would provide supplemental responses by October 21, so Payvision US Inc. requested more time to report any remaining disputes.
Judge P. Kevin Castel granted the application and extended Payvision US Inc.’s deadline to advise the court of any remaining discovery disputes until October 24, 2022.
The detailed version
- PayVicki LLC v. Payvision US Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08939
- P. Castel
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
The document is Payvision US Inc.’s discovery-dispute letter. It refers to a September 29, 2022 order requiring Payvision US Inc. to notify the court by October 18 of any remaining discovery disputes. Payvision US Inc. stated that PayVicki had served responses on October 7 to requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admissions.
Payvision US Inc.’s Position
Payvision US Inc. argued that PayVicki’s responses were deficient. It contended that PayVicki had waived objections by responding late, that the requests for admissions should be treated as admitted, and that PayVicki’s response to one interrogatory improperly objected that certain requests called for legal conclusions. These were Payvision US Inc.’s arguments in its letter, not findings separately explained by the court in the supplied text.
Payvision US Inc. reported that its counsel and PayVicki’s counsel discussed the deficiencies on October 17. According to the letter, PayVicki’s counsel said supplemental responses could be provided by October 21. Payvision US Inc. therefore asked for an extension of its deadline to report any remaining discovery disputes until October 24.
Ruling
The court marked the application “GRANTED” and stated “SO ORDERED.” The ruling granted Payvision US Inc.’s requested extension until October 24, 2022. The supplied text does not state that the court ruled on the merits of Payvision US Inc.’s objections or required PayVicki to provide any particular supplemental discovery responses.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.