Gropper v. 47th Hotel Associates LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-04080
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gropper v. 47th Hotel Associates LLC, Judge Schofield ordered a response and telephone conference about discovery complaints in an Americans with Disabilities Act case.
Dan Gropper, 47th Hotel Associates LLC, and Logans Sanctuary LLC, because the order addresses the parties’ pending discovery dispute and related scheduling issues in Gropper’s Americans with Disabilities Act case.
What happened
In Gropper v. 47th Hotel Associates LLC, Dan Gropper asked the court to address a discovery dispute involving 47th Hotel Associates LLC and Logans Sanctuary LLC. He said the defendants had not adequately responded to requests for financial records, other documents, and interrogatories in his Americans with Disabilities Act case.
Gropper argued that the defendants’ finances were relevant because they asserted that removing architectural barriers was not readily achievable. He also challenged what he described as improper responses, unexplained boilerplate objections, failures to provide a privilege log, and incomplete answers about ownership interests. He asked for a conference and a 30-day extension of scheduling deadlines after the defendants provided the requested information.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered a response limited to three pages and scheduled a telephone conference to discuss the discovery dispute. The available text does not show that the court decided whether the defendants had to produce any particular documents or information.
The detailed version
- Gropper v. 47th Hotel Associates LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04080
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 2, 2022
Nature of the filing
The filing is a letter from Gropper’s lawyer asking the court to schedule an informal conference about a discovery dispute. Discovery is the process through which parties obtain information and documents from one another before trial. The letter says the parties had two telephone conferences and multiple email exchanges about the dispute.
Plaintiff’s discovery complaints
Gropper’s lawyer argued that the defendants’ financial information was relevant because the defendants asserted a defense that removing architectural barriers was “not readily achievable.” The letter relies on the Americans with Disabilities Act’s definition of that term, which includes consideration of a public accommodation’s overall financial resources. The requested materials included tax returns, financial operating reports, and financial statements.
The letter also challenged the defendants’ responses to other document requests. According to the letter, the defendants used boilerplate objections and then said they would provide “expert discovery,” even though the listed requests did not seek expert documents. The letter further asserted that the defendants had objected that requests were overly broad or burdensome without explaining why, had withheld materials based on privilege without providing a privilege log, and had not supplemented an answer identifying entities with ownership interests.
Requested relief and court action
Gropper’s lawyer asked for an informal conference and requested that the scheduling deadlines be extended by 30 days from the date the defendants provided responsive materials and information. The order at the end of the filing directs a response of no more than three pages and provides for a telephone conference. The extracted text is partially garbled, but it appears to refer to a response due November 8, 2022, at noon and a conference on November 9, 2022, at 4:00 p.m.
The available opinion text does not show a ruling requiring production of the disputed documents, rejecting the defendants’ objections, extending the scheduling deadlines, or deciding the merits of the Americans with Disabilities Act claims. Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s action shown here is limited to managing the discovery dispute by ordering a response and arranging a telephone conference.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.