Castro v. ACNY Developers Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs sought a conference about their request to file a second amended complaint naming an additional defendant. ACNY Developers Inc. and William M. Kukielka, referred to as the “ACNY Defendants,” separately sought a conference and an order requiring the plaintiffs to provide particularized responses to interrogatories, which are written discovery questions. The plaintiffs’ discovery responses were submitted together rather than identifying which of the twelve plaintiffs each answer concerned.

Request to Amend

The plaintiffs requested permission under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to amend their complaint. The court stated that the request was timely and that the plaintiffs could have filed the proposed second amended complaint on February 16, 2024, without additional permission under an earlier order. The court also noted that it had received no opposition to the amendment request and found no prejudice to the opposing party or bad faith by the plaintiffs.

The court granted the request to amend. The second amended complaint was due by April 8, 2024.

Request to Compel Discovery

The ACNY Defendants asked the court to require revised, particularized answers to the interrogatories. The court found that request reasonable and proportional to the needs of the case. The plaintiffs had not submitted a letter defending their interrogatory responses or productions.

The court granted the ACNY Defendants’ request to compel. The plaintiffs were directed to provide revised responses by April 16, 2024.

Disposition

The court denied both requests for a conference. It granted the plaintiffs’ request to amend the complaint and granted the ACNY Defendants’ request to compel particularized interrogatory responses. The clerk was respectfully requested to close the motions at Docket Nos. 65, 66, and 67.