Sarro v. Homegoods, Inc.

Background

The court considered letters from the plaintiffs and defendants concerning the defendants’ “First Set of Interrogatories and Combined Demands.” Interrogatories are written questions, and document demands seek documents or other materials from the opposing party.

The plaintiffs asked the court to order the defendants to withdraw those discovery requests. The plaintiffs’ letter stated that the requests sought the same information, documents, and authorizations that had previously been exchanged in state court. The plaintiffs characterized the requests as an effort to show that the defendants were conducting new work in federal court to support opposition to a motion to send the case back to state court.

Parties’ Positions

The defendants opposed the request and argued that the plaintiffs had not provided relevant discovery. They stated that the requests were served before the plaintiffs sought permission to file a motion to send the case back to state court, so the requests could not have been intended to support opposition to that motion. The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs had not identified which requests were duplicative or shown specifically what burden responding would impose. They asked the court to deny the plaintiffs’ request for a protective order.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the plaintiffs’ request without prejudice to renewal before Magistrate Judge Reznik upon issuance of an order of reference. The order therefore did not grant the requested withdrawal of the discovery demands. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 12.

The endorsement addressed the discovery request and did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or the motion concerning sending the case back to state court.