De Henriquez v. William James Bushell Corp.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-02990
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In De Henriquez v. William James Bushell Corp., Judge Liman granted both of Kevin De Henriquez’s unopposed motions.
Kevin De Henriquez received an order compelling William James Bushell Corp. d/b/a Radiant Solar to produce the requested information and documents by March 18, 2024, and granting a 60-day extension of the deadline to amend the pleadings.
What happened
In De Henriquez v. William James Bushell Corp., Kevin De Henriquez filed a motion asking the defendant to respond to document requests and interrogatories, along with a motion seeking a 60-day extension of the deadline to amend the pleadings.
The court notified William James Bushell Corp. that it would consider the motions unopposed if the company did not respond by March 7, 2024. The company did not respond.
The court granted both motions as unopposed. Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the defendant to produce the requested information and documents by March 18, 2024, and directed the clerk to close the two motion entries.
The detailed version
- De Henriquez v. William James Bushell Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-02990
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 8, 2024
Background
On March 5, 2024, Kevin De Henriquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed two motions against William James Bushell Corp. d/b/a Radiant Solar. One motion sought to compel the defendant to respond to document requests and interrogatories. The other sought a 60-day extension of the deadline to amend the pleadings.
Court’s ruling
The court took both motions under advisement and notified the defendant that it would consider them unopposed if the defendant did not respond by March 7, 2024. The defendant did not respond to either motion. The court therefore granted both motions as unopposed. It ordered the defendant to produce the information and documents identified in the motion to compel by March 18, 2024. The clerk was directed to close the two motion entries, Dkt. Nos. 39 and 40.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.