Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-03074
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York, Judge Liman denied without prejudice Ruradan’s motion to compel discovery.
Ruradan Corporation and the Toasties Defendants—Jin Choi, Matthew Ahn, Raymond Kim, L&K 48 Venture, Inc., and JLEE 19 Corp.—were affected by the ruling on the document-production dispute.
What happened
In Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York, Ruradan Corporation asked the court to order Jin Choi, Matthew Ahn, Raymond Kim, L&K 48 Venture, Inc., and JLEE 19 Corp. to produce documents. Ruradan argued that these defendants had lost their objections by responding late and that their objections were invalid.
The court said Ruradan had not shown that it properly served the document requests. Email service is permitted only when the other side has agreed in writing, and the defendants said they had not given that agreement. The court also found that some requests were too broad, while Ruradan had not shown that other requests—including requests for tax returns—were relevant and necessary.
Judge Liman denied the motion without prejudice. Ruradan may renew it after the parties meet and confer and after Ruradan makes a proper showing that the requested documents are relevant.
The detailed version
- Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-03074
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 18, 2022
Background
Ruradan Corporation moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to compel document production from Jin Choi, Matthew Ahn, Raymond Kim, L&K 48 Venture, Inc., and JLEE 19 Corp., identified in the opinion as the “Toasties Defendants.” Ruradan argued that the Toasties Defendants waived their objections because they did not respond to the document requests on time, and that the objections themselves lacked merit.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected the waiver argument because it depended on Ruradan having properly served the requests. The court explained that Rule 5(b)(2)(E) permits service by email only when the opposing party has consented in writing. The Toasties Defendants represented that they had not provided written consent, and Ruradan offered no evidence showing otherwise.
The court also addressed the substance of the discovery requests. The Toasties Defendants represented that they had produced all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control for categories (b), (c), (f), and (g). The court found categories (a), which sought all communications between the parties, and (e), which sought photographs, overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case as drafted. The defendants represented that they had produced communications concerning alleged nonpayment of rent, vacating the premises, and matters related to Ruradan’s claims. Ruradan did not show the relevance of categories (h) through (l). For the tax-return request, the court also found that Ruradan had not shown both relevance and a compelling need for the returns because the information might be available from a less intrusive source.
Disposition
Judge Liman denied the motion without prejudice to renewal after the parties had met and conferred and after Ruradan made a proper showing of relevance. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 68.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.