Phase One Network, Inc. v. Ye
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-09511
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Phase One Network v. Ye, Judge Parker entered a scheduling order setting amendment, discovery, and status-letter deadlines.
The parties and their counsel in Phase One Network, Inc. v. Ye, including the defendants identified in the caption as Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, doing business as Yeezy Tech, must follow the scheduling and discovery requirements.
What happened
Phase One Network, Inc. v. Ye concerned an initial case-management conference attended by the parties. The court entered a scheduling order under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The order set September 4, 2023, as the deadline to amend pleadings or add parties. It also set deadlines for exchanging initial documents, completing fact discovery, completing expert discovery, and filing a joint status letter.
Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the parties and their lawyers to follow federal discovery rules and the court’s procedures for discovery disputes. The order did not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
The detailed version
- Phase One Network, Inc. v. Ye · No. 1:22-cv-09511
- Katharine Parker
- May 18, 2023
Nature of the Order
After an initial case-management conference, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker entered a scheduling order under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order manages the case’s pleadings, party amendments, discovery, and status reporting; it does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims.
Deadlines and Case Management
The parties may amend their pleadings or join additional parties until September 4, 2023. After that date, further amendments or joinder require good cause.
The deadline to complete fact discovery is November 30,
- The parties must exchange the initial documents and discovery discussed at the May 17, 2023 conference by June 16,
- Expert discovery must be completed by March 13,
- The parties must also file a joint status letter by Friday, June 16, 2023.
Discovery Requirements
The court directed the parties to follow its individual procedures for discovery disputes and to comply with Rules 1 and 26(b)(1). The order reminded counsel to understand their responsibilities under Rules 34 and 26(g), discuss ways to reduce disputes, and avoid overly broad or nonspecific document requests. Requests seeking all documents on a broad topic are presumptively improper. The order also warned that an objection that does not explain its grounds appropriately may be forfeited, except that the cited rule regarding waiver preserves privilege objections.
Disposition
Judge Parker entered the scheduling order. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied a motion, enter judgment, or decide the merits of any claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.