Rosa v. Mandarich Law Group LLP
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-04720
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rosa v. Mandarich Law Group LLP, Judge Liman denied Rosa’s motion to compel a contract but granted withdrawal of an admission.
William R. Rosa and Mandarich Law Group, LLP, concerning the requested contract and Request for Admission Number 6.
What happened
In Rosa v. Mandarich Law Group LLP, William R. Rosa asked the court to require Mandarich Law Group, LLP to produce a contract with Calvary SPV 1, LLC before a scheduled deposition. He also asked to withdraw his response to the defendant’s Request for Admission Number 6.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It denied the request for the contract because fact discovery had closed and Rosa showed no good cause for waiting to seek the document. It granted the request to withdraw the admission because the defendant did not object and the change would not prejudice the defendant while helping present the case’s merits.
Judge Lewis J. Liman entered the September 18, 2023 order. The order addressed discovery timing and an admission; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Rosa v. Mandarich Law Group LLP · No. 1:22-cv-04720
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 18, 2023
Background
William R. Rosa moved to compel production of a contract between Mandarich Law Group, LLP and Calvary SPV 1, LLC before a deposition scheduled for September 18, 2023. He also moved to withdraw his response to Mandarich’s Request for Admission Number 6. Mandarich opposed the motion to compel but did not object to withdrawal of the admission.
Request for the Contract
The court denied the motion to compel. It explained that, after the court-ordered close of fact discovery, a request to produce documents requires good cause. Fact discovery had closed on March 20, 2023, and the deposition deadline was September 22, 2023. The court noted that Mandarich had objected to producing the contract in November 2022, leaving Rosa sufficient time to seek production during the remaining discovery period. Because Rosa waited until months after fact discovery closed and did not otherwise show good cause, the court found the request untimely.
Withdrawal of the Admission
The court granted Rosa’s request to withdraw his response to Request for Admission Number 6. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), an admission may be withdrawn or amended when doing so would not prejudice the requesting party and would promote presentation of the case’s merits. The court found those requirements satisfied because Mandarich had not objected.
Disposition and Classification
The court granted in part and denied in part Rosa’s motion. It denied the motion to compel and granted the request to withdraw the response to Request for Admission Number 6. This was a discovery and case-management order, not a decision on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.