David Clark Company, Inc. v. Roanwell, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-01233
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
David Clark v. Roanwell: Judge Parker set pleading, party-joinder, discovery, and status-report deadlines.
David Clark Company, Inc., Roanwell LLC, and their counsel, who must follow the scheduling deadlines and discovery requirements.
What happened
David Clark Company, Inc. v. Roanwell LLC concerns an initial case-management conference held on May 8, 2023. The parties appeared, and the court reviewed the pleadings and consulted with them.
The court entered a scheduling order under Rule 16. It set June 15, 2023, as the deadline to amend pleadings or add parties, February 19, 2024, for fact discovery and initial disclosures, and May 31, 2024, for expert discovery. It also required a joint status letter by June 7, 2023, and gave instructions about discovery disputes and document requests.
Judge Katharine H. Parker entered the order. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- David Clark Company, Inc. v. Roanwell, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-01233
- Andrew Carter
- May 8, 2023
Nature of the Order
After an initial case-management conference, the court entered a scheduling order under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion does not address the merits of the parties’ claims.
Deadlines
The parties could amend their pleadings or join additional parties until June 15, 2023. After that date, further amendments or joinder required good cause.
The deadline to complete fact discovery and exchange initial disclosures was February 19, 2024. The deadline for expert discovery was May 31, 2024. The parties also had to file a joint status letter by June 7, 2023, reporting on their progress with discovery.
Discovery Instructions
The court directed the parties to follow its individual procedures for discovery disputes and to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1 and 26(b)(1). It instructed counsel to understand their obligations under Rules 34 and 26(g), and to discuss ways to reduce disputes over overly broad or insufficiently specific document requests and responses. The court stated that broad requests for all documents on a topic are presumptively improper and that an objection that does not adequately explain its grounds may be forfeited. It also cited authority stating that failure to state specific objections and identify whether responsive material is being withheld can waive objections, except objections based on privilege.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.