Government Employees Insurance Company v. Datta
- Ona Wang
- 1:22-cv-10531
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Datta, Judge Rearden ordered the Datta Defendants to state whether they would respond to Plaintiffs’ letter about starting discovery.
The Plaintiffs, the Datta Defendants, and the other parties and counsel in the case were affected by the order’s requirements concerning a response and the timing of discovery.
What happened
Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Datta concerns Plaintiffs’ request for a scheduling order so the parties could begin gathering evidence. Plaintiffs said all parties except the Datta Defendants had agreed to the proposed schedule.
Plaintiffs argued that the Datta Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss or transfer venue did not justify delaying discovery. They said the motion addressed only some claims and some defendants, while other fraud claims would require overlapping evidence.
Judge Rearden ordered the Datta Defendants to file a letter by July 14 stating whether they would respond to Plaintiffs’ letter or rely on their earlier arguments. If they chose to respond, the court required that response by July 18; the order did not itself decide the motion or enter the requested scheduling order.
The detailed version
- Government Employees Insurance Company v. Datta · No. 1:22-cv-10531
- Ona Wang
- July 11, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs asked the court to enter a scheduling order and allow fact discovery to begin. According to Plaintiffs’ letter, the case had begun nearly eight months earlier, all parties had been served by January 5, 2023, and all parties other than the Datta Defendants had consented to the proposed scheduling order.
The Datta Defendants had filed a partial motion to dismiss or transfer venue. Plaintiffs said that motion sought dismissal of the claims for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs also said the motion sought dismissal or transfer of venue as to only two of the five Datta Defendants, and did not seek dismissal of the common-law fraud or aiding-and-abetting-fraud claims.
Plaintiffs’ Position
Plaintiffs argued that the pending motion did not, by itself, justify staying discovery. They also argued that the requested discovery would largely remain the same regardless of how the court resolved the partial motion because the claims involved the same operative facts.
Court’s Action
The court ordered the Datta Defendants to file a letter by July 14, 2023, stating whether they wished to file a response to Plaintiffs’ July 10 letter or stand on the arguments presented in the parties’ May 12, 2023 letter. If they wished to file a response, the court required them to do so by July 18, 2023.
The order did not decide the Datta Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss or transfer venue, and it did not state that the requested scheduling order had been entered. This was a procedural order concerning the parties’ next filing and the timing of discovery.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.