Schatzmann v. Harris Partners Ltd.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-07301
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Schatzmann v. Harris Partners Ltd., Judge Failla ordered document production and set response deadlines after considering an incarcerated defendant’s request for more time.
The plaintiffs were required to produce specified agreements and file proof of production; the incarcerated defendant received access to those documents and a November 20, 2023 deadline to respond to the pending motions.
What happened
In Schatzmann v. Harris Partners Ltd., the court addressed an incarcerated defendant’s request for more time to respond to the plaintiffs’ motions. The plaintiffs opposed a lengthy delay, asked for a prompt deadline, and requested that discovery be paused while the motions were pending.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide the defendant with employment agreements and other agreements containing arbitration clauses by October 23, 2023. It also ordered the defendant to respond to the plaintiffs’ motions by November 20, 2023, and required the plaintiffs to file proof of document production by October 30, 2023.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide the underlying motions or expressly rule on the request to stay discovery. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 54 and mail the order to the defendant.
The detailed version
- Schatzmann v. Harris Partners Ltd. · No. 1:21-cv-07301
- Katherine Failla
- Sept. 25, 2023
Background
The court considered the defendant’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the plaintiffs’ motions. Those motions sought to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims, deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and strike the defendant’s answer. The plaintiffs opposed the requested delay and asked either that their motion be treated as unopposed or that the defendant be given a short, definite deadline to respond.
The plaintiffs also asked the court to pause discovery. They argued that the defendant had issued discovery requests before the parties held the required conference and before a discovery schedule had been set. They further argued that discovery was premature because the pending motions could affect which claims would continue.
Court’s Action
The court did not rule on the merits of the pending motions. Instead, because the defendant was incarcerated and had difficulty accessing key documents, the court ordered the plaintiffs to produce, by October 23, 2023, all employment agreements between any plaintiff and the defendant, along with any other agreements between a plaintiff and the defendant that contained an arbitration clause. The plaintiffs had to file proof of that production by October 30, 2023.
The court also ordered the defendant to respond to the plaintiffs’ motions by November 20, 2023. The order did not expressly grant or deny the request to stay discovery. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 54 and to mail a copy of the order to the defendant’s address of record.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.