Vyas v. Taglich Brothers, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-08104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vyas v. Taglich Brothers, Inc., Judge Parker denied discovery and sealing motions without prejudice and set case-management deadlines.
Sanket Vyas, Taglich Brothers, Inc., Taglich Private Equity, LLC, and their counsel were affected by the discovery deadlines, amendment-motion schedule, postponed answer-or-dismissal deadline, status requirements, and rulings on the discovery and sealing motions.
What happened
In Vyas v. Taglich Brothers, Inc., the court issued scheduling and case-management directions after an October 11, 2023 conference. It kept the fact-discovery deadline of February 2, 2024, extended expert discovery to April 1, 2024, and set deadlines for expert reports and depositions.
The court also set a schedule for Sanket Vyas’s anticipated motion to amend the complaint. The defendants’ deadline to answer or seek dismissal was postponed with no new date set. The court directed the parties to file a joint discovery-status letter and scheduled a case-management conference and argument on the amendment motion.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the discovery motion without prejudice because it was premature and denied the motion to file a document under seal without prejudice because it did not comply with local rules and was moot in light of the anticipated amendment motion. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Vyas v. Taglich Brothers, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08104
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 11, 2023
Background
The order followed an October 11, 2023 conference in the case brought by Sanket Vyas against Taglich Brothers, Inc. and Taglich Private Equity, LLC. The order addressed discovery, a planned motion to amend the complaint, scheduling, and two pending motions.
Scheduling and Amendment Motion
The court kept the fact-discovery deadline at February 2, 2024. It extended the expert-discovery deadline to April 1, 2024. Affirmative expert reports were due February 9, 2024; rebuttal expert reports were due March 8, 2024; and expert depositions had to be completed by April 1, 2024.
The court set deadlines for Vyas’s anticipated motion for leave to amend the complaint: October 27, 2023, for the motion and supporting papers; November 21, 2023, for the defendants’ response; and December 1, 2023, for Vyas’s reply. The motion had to include a clean proposed amended complaint and a redline showing the proposed changes.
Because of the anticipated amendment motion, the October 17, 2023 deadline for the defendants to answer the complaint or move to dismiss was adjourned without a new date. The court stated that a new deadline would be set, if appropriate, after deciding the motion for leave to amend.
Status Conference
The court directed the parties to file a joint status letter about discovery on November 10, 2023. It scheduled a case-management conference for December 7, 2023, and stated that it would hear oral argument on the amendment motion at that conference. The order said the conference and argument would be held in person absent compelling circumstances.
Pending Motions
The court denied the motion to compel discovery at ECF No. 107 without prejudice as premature. It directed the parties to continue exchanging discovery in good faith and under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For any discovery dispute that could not be resolved through meeting and conferring, the court instructed the parties to write to the court describing the dispute and requesting a discovery conference rather than filing a motion to compel.
The court denied the motion at ECF No. 120 for leave to file a document under seal without prejudice. It found the motion non-compliant with local rules and moot because of the anticipated motion for leave to amend. The court provided instructions for any renewed sealing motion and stated that a motion to seal materials connected to a motion to dismiss would be premature until any renewed or revised motion to dismiss was filed. The clerk was directed to terminate the two motions.
Disposition and Effect
This was a procedural scheduling and motion order. It did not decide the merits of the claims or the anticipated motion to amend. Judge Katharine H. Parker denied both pending motions without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.