Coral Realty, LLC et al v. Federal Insurance Company

Filing 90

ORDER re: 88 Letter filed by Federal Insurance Company, 89 Letter, filed by Coral Realty LLC, Coral Crystal, LLC.. When the Court directed the parties to file a joint status letter, that was not a suggestion. It was an order. Here are two more: 1.The noncompliant letters at Dkt. Nos. 88 and 89 are hereby STRICKEN. 2.No later than January 6, 2021, the parties shall file a joint status letter, no longer than 4 pages in the aggregate (exclusive of exhibits), see Moses Ind. Prac. &# 167; 1(d), in which they (a) outline the progress of discovery to date, as well as (b) any settlement efforts, and (c) inform the Court of any new disputes requiring the Court's attention.The parties are reminded that if the new disputes are dis covery disputes they must meet and confer in good faith before seeking judicial resolution of any remaining issues. If the parties are unable to agree upon the content of the joint letter, they shalldivide it into three sections, corresponding to the three topics set forth above, and within each section they shall allocate an equal number of lines of text to each side. The parties are reminded that, while the Court will not accept any further briefing concerning Federal's pending motion for leave to amend its answer, they may present argument on that motion at the January 11 conference. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 1/4/2021) (kv)

Case 1:17-cv-01007-LTS-BCM Document 90 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1/4/2021

CORAL CRYSTAL, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

17-CV-1007 (LTS) (BCM)
ORDER

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge.
On October 10, 2020, and again on November 20, 2020, this Court directed the parties to
submit a "joint status letter" in advance of the conference now scheduled for January 11, 2021.
(Dkt. No. 66 ¶ 5, Dkt. No. 73 at 4.) The joint status letter was due today. Instead of a joint status
letter, the Court received two separate letters, each complaining about the opposing party's
approach to preparing a joint submission. (Dkt. Nos. 88, 89.) In their separate letters, the parties
are seemingly unable to agree even as to whether and what they agree upon. For example,
Federal reports that "there are no new disputes requiring the Court's attention." (Dkt. No. 88 at
2.) Coral, however, states that it will require "the assistance of the court regarding the scope of
discovery" (Dkt. No. 89 at 3), and attaches a copy of Federal's document demands dated
December 8, 2020. (Dkt. No. 89-1.) 1
When the Court directed the parties to file a joint status letter, that was not a suggestion.
It was an order. Here are two more:
1. The noncompliant letters at Dkt. Nos. 88 and 89 are hereby STRICKEN.

1

The Court notes that the time for responding to the demands has not yet run. The Court further
notes that there is no indication, in either side's letters, that the parties have met and conferred in
good faith about the document demands, as required before either side may seek judicial
resolution of any remaining dispute. See S.D.N.Y. Local Civ. R. 37.2; Moses Ind. Prac. § 2(b).

Case 1:17-cv-01007-LTS-BCM Document 90 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 2

2. No later than January 6, 2021, the parties shall file a joint status letter, no longer
than 4 pages in the aggregate (exclusive of exhibits), see Moses Ind. Prac. § 1(d), in
which they (a) outline the progress of discovery to date, as well as (b) any settlement
efforts, and (c) inform the Court of any new disputes requiring the Court's attention.
The parties are reminded that if the new disputes are discovery disputes they must
meet and confer in good faith before seeking judicial resolution of any remaining
issues. If the parties are unable to agree upon the content of the joint letter, they shall
divide it into three sections, corresponding to the three topics set forth above, and
within each section they shall allocate an equal number of lines of text to each side.
The parties are reminded that, while the Court will not accept any further briefing
concerning Federal's pending motion for leave to amend its answer, they may present argument
on that motion at the January 11 conference.
Dated: New York, New York
January 4, 2021
SO ORDERED.

________________________________
BARBARA MOSES
United States Magistrate Judge

2