Sharbat v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-01391
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sharbat v. Iovance, Judge Ramos denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery because they did not show good cause for filing after discovery closed.
The plaintiffs’ request for documents and depositions was denied, and Iovance was not ordered by this ruling to provide that discovery.
What happened
In Sharbat v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to require Iovance to produce documents and make certain people available for depositions. The request concerned discovery in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Iovance.
The court had already set January 4, 2022, as the end of discovery and confirmed at a January 5 conference that discovery was closed. Although the court allowed the plaintiffs to file a motion to compel, the plaintiffs did not show good cause for waiting to pursue it and did not tell the court at a later conference that they wanted to refile it.
Judge Ramos denied the motion to compel discovery. The order did not require Iovance to provide the requested documents or depositions.
The detailed version
- Sharbat v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01391
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 19, 2023
Background
Solomon Sharbat, Solomon Capital LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, and Shelhav Raff sued Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. for unjust enrichment and indemnification. The opinion concerns the plaintiffs’ January 19, 2022 motion to compel discovery— a request for a court order requiring an opposing party to provide requested information and produce people for depositions.
The court’s scheduling order set January 4, 2022, as the discovery deadline. At a January 5, 2022 case-management conference, the court told the parties that discovery was closed. The court nevertheless allowed plaintiffs’ counsel to file a motion to compel, while warning that it was disinclined to grant the motion based on what it knew about the case.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed the motion to compel after discovery had closed. Their counsel later experienced a serious health incident and died, and the court granted a requested 60-day adjournment. Iovance filed its opposition on March 25, 2022.
On March 29, 2022, the court ordered the plaintiffs to state at an upcoming conference whether they wanted to refile the motion or withdraw it. At the April 15, 2022 conference, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that discovery was not over, but did not ask for permission to renew the motion under the March 29 order. Instead, the plaintiffs sought leave to file a second amended complaint and said they intended to seek summary judgment. The court later granted Iovance’s sanctions motion, dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claim, denied their motion to amend, and awarded Iovance attorneys’ fees connected with that sanctions motion. The present order addresses only the unresolved motion to compel discovery.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court held that the plaintiffs had not shown “good cause,” meaning a sufficient reason, to justify waiting until after discovery closed to pursue the motion to compel. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to tell the court at the April 15 conference—or afterward—that they wanted to refile the motion, as the March 29 order required.
Accordingly, Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the motion to compel discovery. The order does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.