Sterilumen, Inc v. Aeroclean Technologies, LLC
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-06842
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sterilumen v. Aeroclean Technologies, Judge Halpern denied striking counterclaims and ordered revised discovery while requiring further briefing on dismissal.
Sterilumen, Inc. and Aeroclean Technologies, Inc.; the order kept Aeroclean’s counterclaims in the case, required Sterilumen to answer them, imposed revised discovery obligations, and left Sterilumen’s dismissal request unresolved.
What happened
In Sterilumen, Inc. v. Aeroclean Technologies, Inc., the plaintiff asked to voluntarily dismiss its case and remove counterclaims two through five from the defendant’s answer. The parties appeared through counsel at a pre-motion conference.
The court denied the request to strike the counterclaims and ordered the plaintiff to answer them by March 10, 2023. The court also struck 172 document demands, required revised discovery, ordered the plaintiff to provide initial disclosures, and extended the discovery deadlines. The court did not yet decide whether to dismiss the plaintiff’s action.
Judge Philip M. Halpern required the defendant to provide information about possible insurance-coverage consequences of dismissal and gave the plaintiff an opportunity to respond. The court also set deadlines for the parties to discuss settlement and adjourned the case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Sterilumen, Inc v. Aeroclean Technologies, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-06842
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 28, 2023
Background
Sterilumen, Inc. filed a letter-motion seeking two forms of relief: voluntary dismissal of its action and removal of counterclaims two through five from Aeroclean Technologies, Inc.’s answer to the Second Amended Complaint. The court treated the letter as the formal motion after considering the parties’ submissions and hearing their arguments at a pre-motion conference.
Rulings on the motion
The court denied the part of Sterilumen’s motion seeking to strike the counterclaims, for the reasons stated during the conference. Sterilumen was ordered to answer Aeroclean’s counterclaims by March 10, 2023.
The court did not rule on the part of the motion seeking dismissal of the action. Instead, it ordered Aeroclean to submit by March 3, 2023, a short affidavit from someone with personal knowledge of the insurance policy discussed at the conference. The affidavit had to state whether Aeroclean would lose insurance coverage if the action were dismissed without prejudice and only the counterclaims continued. Aeroclean also had to provide the policy and the letter authorizing coverage. Sterilumen could respond by March 7, 2023, explaining how that information affected the factors the court would consider in deciding the dismissal request and why dismissal without prejudice should be granted.
Discovery and case-management orders
The court directed Aeroclean to serve new interrogatories by March 10, 2023, if its existing interrogatories exceeded 25 when discrete subparts were counted. The revised interrogatories had to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 and the Local Civil Rules. Sterilumen had to respond by March 17, 2023.
The court struck Aeroclean’s 172 document demands. By March 10, 2023, Aeroclean had to either serve new document demands or identify which of the 172 demands remained appropriate in light of the court’s comments. Sterilumen then had to respond to each modified request and provide its document production by March 17, 2023. Sterilumen was also ordered to serve its initial disclosures immediately.
The court extended discovery by 45 days. Fact discovery had to be completed by May 19, 2023, expert discovery by July 3, 2023, and all discovery by July 3, 2023. The case-management conference set for June 22, 2023, was moved to August 9, 2023, at noon. The parties also had to meet and discuss possible resolution by March 31, 2023, and report the dates, length, and results of those discussions to the court.
Effect of the order
The counterclaims remained in the case, and the plaintiff had to answer them. The plaintiff’s dismissal request remained unresolved in this order. The parties also received new discovery obligations and deadlines. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered the order on February 28, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.