Consigli & Associates, LLC v. Maplewood Senior Living, LLC
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:20-cv-07712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Consigli v. Maplewood, Judge Schofield ordered Maplewood to file a reply by March 20, without deciding the discovery motions.
Maplewood Senior Living, LLC was ordered to file a reply by March 20, 2023, limited to five pages. Federal Insurance Company, a non-party represented in the letter, and Consigli & Associates, LLC were the parties whose letters Maplewood had to address. The court did not decide the proposed discovery motions in the provided text.
What happened
In Consigli & Associates, LLC v. Maplewood Senior Living, LLC, non-party Federal Insurance Company responded to Maplewood’s request for a conference about compelling discovery and asked for a protective-order conference. Federal argued that some requested premium documents concerned a dismissed fraud claim and that other documents contained confidential information.
Federal asked the court to deny Maplewood’s proposed motion to compel and grant Federal’s proposed motion for a protective order. The text provided does not show that the court decided either request or resolved the parties’ discovery dispute.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered Maplewood to file, by March 20, 2023, a reply to both Consigli’s and Federal’s letters, limited to five pages. The order did not state that the discovery motions were granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Consigli & Associates, LLC v. Maplewood Senior Living, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-07712
- Jed Rakoff
- Mar. 15, 2023
What the document is
The provided text consists primarily of a letter from Michael R. Morano, representing non-party Federal Insurance Company, followed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s one-line order. The order directs Maplewood to file a reply to Consigli’s and Federal’s letters by March 20, 2023, and limits the reply to five pages.
Discovery dispute
Maplewood had requested a pre-motion conference concerning a proposed motion to compel Federal to produce documents. The requested materials involved premiums for certain surety bonds and documents that Federal had redacted. Federal argued that premium-related materials concerned Maplewood’s dismissed fraud claim and were therefore no longer relevant. Federal also argued that the court could not require it to create documents that did not already exist.
Federal described a separate dispute over redactions. Maplewood had identified 29 documents and asked Federal to produce them without redactions. Federal stated that it produced 12 documents without redactions, designated 13 as privileged, and kept limited redactions on four related emails because they contained confidential, sensitive, and proprietary profit and billing information.
Requests in Federal’s letter
Federal asked the court to deny Maplewood’s proposed motion to compel and grant Federal’s proposed motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Those requests are positions stated in Federal’s letter, not rulings shown in the provided text.
Court’s action and effect
The court ordered only that Maplewood file a reply to the two letters by the stated deadline and page limit. The provided text does not show a decision on Maplewood’s proposed motion to compel, Federal’s proposed motion for a protective order, or the underlying relevance and confidentiality disputes.
Classification
This is classified as other because the provided document does not show a ruling granting, denying, dismissing, remanding, or entering judgment. It is an order setting a response deadline.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.