Martin v. New American Cinema Group, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-05982
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Martin v. New American Cinema Group, Judge Rochon ordered production of documents withheld because of a dismissal motion and required a meet-and-confer on other requests.
Katrina Martin, New American Cinema Group, Inc., and Marie Serra; the order governs their document discovery and negotiations over specified discovery requests.
What happened
In Katrina Martin v. New American Cinema Group, Inc., Martin asked the court to require New American Cinema Group, Inc. and Marie Serra to produce documents and revise their discovery responses. She argued that the defendants improperly withheld documents because they planned to file a motion to dismiss and used general and boilerplate objections.
The court explained that the pending dismissal motion did not automatically pause discovery. It ordered the defendants to promptly produce documents withheld because of that motion. The court did not order immediate production of every document Martin identified; instead, it required the parties to discuss Requests Nos. 7, 8, 9, 23, 25, and 29 within ten days.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon further ordered that, if those disputes remained unresolved, Martin could ask the court to intervene under its individual practice rules. The parties would then need to identify the basis for the requests and the objections. The order addressed discovery procedures rather than the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Martin v. New American Cinema Group, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05982
- Rochon
- Dec. 6, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Katrina Martin moved under Local Civil Rule 37.2 and Judge Rochon’s Individual Practices to compel defendants New American Cinema Group, Inc. and Marie Serra to provide discovery. Martin said the defendants had withheld documents based on the anticipated or pending motion to dismiss, had used general and boilerplate objections, and had not clearly identified which responsive documents they were withholding or agreeing to produce.
Martin requested three forms of relief: production of documents withheld because of the motion to dismiss; amended discovery responses identifying what would be produced and withdrawing improper objections; and production of all responsive documents within thirty days. The opinion states that the defendants’ response was due by December 1, 2022, but no response had been filed as of the order. The court also stated that it was unclear whether the parties had specifically met and conferred about this application. It nevertheless found that the defendants had appropriately lodged objections and had often indicated that they would produce documents subject to those objections.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected the premise that the motion to dismiss automatically stayed discovery. Because no discovery stay had been entered, the defendants could not withhold documents solely because of the motion to dismiss. The court did not, however, resolve every dispute about the defendants’ objections or order all requested production immediately.
Order
The court ordered that, to the extent the defendants were withholding documents because of the pending motion to dismiss, they must produce those documents forthwith. It also ordered the parties to meet and confer within ten days about Requests Nos. 7, 8, 9, 23, 25, and 29. If the parties could not resolve those disputes, Martin could seek the court’s intervention as permitted by Judge Rochon’s Individual Rule 2(E). In that event, the parties had to specify the basis for the relevance or other appropriateness of the requests and the objections to them.
This was a discovery order. It did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of Martin’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.