Negrete et al v. Citibank, N.A.

Filing 93

OPINION. Defendant Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank" or the "Defendant"), by a letter to the Court treated as a motion to compel, has sought document production from Plaintiffs Eduardo and Gervasio Negrete (the "Negretes" or th e "Plaintiffs"). For the reasons in this Opinion, Defendant's motion is granted, and as further specified and set forth in this Opinion. Plaintiffs will comply with the document request relating to the contract within 20 days or such o ther time as counsel agree upon. Although the demand appears to be narrowly drawn, Plaintiffs are granted leave within the same timeframe to move to vacate this order in the event a meet and confer does not resolve any objections. The parties will al so meet and confer on a discovery plan and a schedule to resolve any issues upon which agreement cannot be reached. It is so ordered. re: 81 LETTER MOTION for Conference [Pursuant to Southern District Local Rule 37.2], addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Marshall H. Fishman dated March 29, 2017. Document filed by Citibank, N.A. 82 LETTER MOTION for Conference [Pursuant to Southern District Local Rule 37.2] addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Marshall H. Fishman dated March 29, 2017. Document filed by Citibank, N.A. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/26/2017) (rjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------x
EDUARDO NEGRETE AND GERVASIO NEGRETE,
Plaintiffs,
15 Civ. 7250
- against OPINION
CITIBANK, N. A.,
Defendant.

-------------------------------------------x
A P P E A R A N C E S:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LIDDLE & ROBINSON, LLP
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
By:
Blaine H. Bortnick, Esq.
James W. Halter, Esq.
Read K. Mccaffrey, Esq.
Ato o sa Esmaili, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant
GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
The New York Times Building
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018-1405
By:
Marshall H. Fishman, Esq.
Samuel J. Rubin, Esq.

(RWS)

Sweet, D.J.

Defendant Citibank, N.A.

("Citibank" or the "Defendant"),

by a letter to the Court treated as a motion to compel, has
sought document production from Plaintiffs Eduardo and Gervasio
Negrete (the "Negretes" or the "Plaintiffs") . For the foregoing
reasons, Defendant's motion is granted.

Prior Proceedings

The factual background and prior proceedings of this matter
have been set forth in previous opinions by this Court. See,
~'

Negrete v. Citibank, N.A., 187 F. Supp. 3d 454, 459-61

(S.D.N.Y. 2016); Negrete v. Citibank, N.A., No. 15 Civ. 7250
(RWS), 2017 WL 758516, at *1-5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27 , 2017).
Familiarity is assumed.

Defendant's letter dated March 29, 20 17, requesting a
discovery conference pursuant to Local Rule 37.2,

(Dkt. 81), was

treated as a motion to compel by the Court on March 31, 2017,
(Dkt. 83). The motion was heard and marked fully submitted on
April 12, 2017.

1

On July 11, 2017, Plaintiffs' motion to certify certain
dismissed claims from their amended complaint as partial
judgments final orders was denied.

(See Dkt. 92.)

No resolution of the Defendant's letter mo t ion or any
discovery plan has been reported to the Court a t present.

Applicable Standard

Rule 26 "create[s] many options for the district judge .
[to] manage the discovery process to facilitate prompt and
efficient resolution of the lawsuit." Crawford-El v. Britton,
523 U.S. 574, 599 (1998). It "vests the trial judge with broad
discretion to tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate the
sequence of discovery." Id. at 598. The district court may
expand or limit the permitted number and time limits of
depositions, direct "the time, place, and manner of discovery,
or even bar discovery on certain subjects," and may "set the
timing and sequence of discovery." Id. at 598-99; Fed. R. Civ.
P.

26(b)(2)(A).

Consequently, the Court has wide discretion in deciding
motions to compel. See Grand Cent. P'ship Inc. v . Cuomo, 166

2

F . 3d 473, 488

(2d Cir. 1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26

states:
Parties
may
obtain
discovery
regarding
any
nonpri vileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense-including the existence, description,
nature,
custody,
condition,
and
location
of
any
documents or other tangible things and the identity
and location of persons who know of any discoverable
matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery
of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved
in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. If a party objects to disco v ery requests,
that party bears the burden of showing why discovery should be
denied. Freydl v. Meringolo, No. 09 Civ. 07196 (BSJ)

(KNF), 2011

WL 256608-7, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2011).

Defendant's Motion To Compel Is Granted

Plaintiffs will comply with the document request relating
to the contract within 20 days or such other time as counsel
agree upon. Although the demand appears to be narrowly drawn,
Plaintiffs are granted leave within the same timeframe to move
to vacate this order in the event a meet and confer does not
resolve any objections.

3

The parties will also meet and confer on a discovery plan
and a schedule to resolve any issues upon which agreement cannot
be reached.

It is so ordered .

New York, NY

Jul~~ 2017

4