Daol Rexmark Union Station LLC v. Union Station Sole Member, LLC

Background

The parties submitted a joint letter concerning a discovery dispute. They stated that the originally noticed depositions had been completed and that they had exchanged additional documents after the depositions. Some discovery issues raised by plaintiffs and all issues raised by defendant had been resolved, but several disputes remained.

Plaintiffs sought additional discovery from non-party Ben Ashkenazy and requested a deposition of Daniel Levy. Their requests concerned: (1) Ashkenazy’s refusal to answer questions about facts supporting defendant’s defenses; (2) questions about Ashkenazy’s financial ability to make payments related to the loans; (3) questions about text messages that were later produced in conversation format; (4) an independent review of Ashkenazy’s devices for additional recordings; and (5) Levy’s deposition based on testimony that repeatedly referred to Levy’s knowledge of matters relevant to defendant’s defenses.

Defendant opposed the additional discovery. It argued that questions about facts supporting legal arguments could seek protected attorney work product, that Ashkenazy’s personal finances were not relevant to the claims in this action, that the newly produced text messages did not justify recalling Ashkenazy, and that plaintiffs had not shown the diligence required to reopen discovery for Levy’s deposition. Defendant also argued that reviewing Ashkenazy’s personal devices was unsupported and unnecessary because counsel had confirmed that responsive recordings had been produced.

Ruling

The court’s endorsement stated: “Application granted.” It granted the parties’ request to hold a telephone conference under Local Rule 37.2 concerning plaintiffs’ additional discovery requests. The conference was set for November 29, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions pending at Docket Nos. 113 and 114.

The endorsement did not state that the court granted or denied each individual discovery request. It also did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses. Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the parties to follow the court’s individual rules for the conference and ordered the specified motions terminated.