Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 11, 2023

Ma v. United Rentals, Inc.

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:23-cv-01503
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Ma v. United Rentals, Judge Parker issued a scheduling order setting amendment, discovery, and reporting deadlines.

Who this affects

Chen Chao Ma, United Rentals (North America), Inc., and Troy Rankins, who were subject to the case-management deadlines and discovery requirements.

What happened

In Ma v. United Rentals (North America), Inc., the parties appeared for an initial case-management conference on April 11, 2023.

The court set April 28, 2023, as the deadline to amend pleadings or add parties, and October 1, 2023, as the deadline to complete fact discovery. Depositions were limited to five per side, and the parties had to file a joint discovery-status letter by June 12, 2023.

Judge Katharine H. Parker entered the scheduling order under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order also directed the parties to follow the court’s procedures for discovery disputes and comply with federal discovery rules.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ma v. United Rentals, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01503
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Apr. 11, 2023

Background

Chen Chao Ma brought this case against United Rentals (North America), Inc., and Troy Rankins. On April 11, 2023, the parties appeared for an initial case-management conference. After reviewing the pleadings and consulting with the parties, Judge Katharine H. Parker entered a scheduling order under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Scheduling Order

The parties could amend the pleadings or add parties through April 28, 2023. After that date, further amendments or additions were not allowed absent good cause.

The deadline to complete fact discovery was October 1, 2023. Each side was limited to five depositions. The parties were directed to follow the court’s individual procedures for resolving discovery disputes.

The order required counsel to comply with Rules 1 and 26(b)(1) during discovery. It also addressed document requests and objections, emphasizing that broad requests for all documents on a general topic are presumptively improper and that objections must explain their grounds and identify whether responsive material is being withheld. The order noted that failing to comply with these requirements can result in serious consequences, including waiver of objections other than privilege objections.

The parties had to file a joint status letter about their discovery progress by June 12, 2023.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker entered a scheduling order governing the case. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.