Gencarelli v. Toto USA Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-08438
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gencarelli v. Toto USA Inc., Judge Cave denied a discovery motion as moot, granted clarification, and required the parties to address expert discovery and settlement.
Pro se Plaintiff James John Gencarelli and Defendant Toto USA Inc.; Toto was required to respond to the six written deposition questions, and both parties were directed to address expert discovery and a possible settlement conference.
What happened
James John Gencarelli, representing himself, moved to compel Toto USA Inc. to provide more complete answers to interrogatories and asked the court to explain an earlier order concerning his motion for judgment on the pleadings.
During a telephone conference, Gencarelli agreed to withdraw the interrogatories and proceed with six written deposition questions that he had already given to Toto’s lawyer. The court also explained that his earlier motion relied on information outside the pleadings and therefore was more properly treated as a motion for summary judgment, which was premature because discovery was still ongoing.
The court, in an order signed by United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave, denied the motion to compel as moot and treated the interrogatories as withdrawn. It granted the request for clarification and required the parties, when certifying completion of fact discovery, to state whether they plan to seek expert discovery and whether they want a settlement conference.
The detailed version
- Gencarelli v. Toto USA Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08438
- Analisa Torres
- May 15, 2024
Background
Pro se Plaintiff James John Gencarelli filed a motion to compel Toto USA Inc. to provide further responses to his interrogatories. He also requested clarification of the court’s May 8, 2024 order, which had denied without prejudice to renewal his May 7 motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Court’s Analysis
At a telephone conference, Gencarelli agreed to withdraw the interrogatories and proceed instead with a deposition by six written questions that he had already delivered to Toto’s counsel. The court therefore ruled that Toto was required only to answer those questions.
The court also explained that Gencarelli’s May 7 motion was labeled a motion for judgment on the pleadings but relied on material outside the pleadings. The court had therefore treated it as a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Because discovery was still ongoing, the court had concluded that the motion was premature. This order clarified that earlier ruling; it did not decide the merits of the May 7 motion.
Order
The court denied Gencarelli’s motion to compel as moot and deemed the interrogatories withdrawn. It granted his request for clarification. The parties were directed to state in their joint letter certifying completion of fact discovery whether either party intended to pursue expert discovery and whether they requested a settlement conference. The clerk was directed to close the docket entries for the motion to compel and the clarification request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.