Seagrape Investors LLC v. Tuzman et al

Filing 197

ORDER denying 194 Letter Motion for Discovery. Plaintiff's letter motion to compel supplemental discovery is DENIED. Defendants' request for fees, costs, and expenses is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 194. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 10/6/2023) (dsh)

or response if it learns that its previous disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(e)(1). “The duty to supplement continues even after the discovery period has closed.”
Ferring Pharm. Inc. v. Serenity Pharm., LLC, No. 17-cv-09922 (CM)(SDA), 2019 WL 5682635,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2019) (quoting Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Glob. Crossing Bandwidth,
Inc., 272 F.R.D. 350, 358 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)).
The cases Plaintiff relies on discuss the obligation to supplement discovery up until trial.
See Ferring Pharm., 2019 WL 5682635, at *2 (ordering a party to supplement its document
production after close of discovery and before trial); Star Direct Telecom, 272 F.R.D. at 358
(same); Au New Haven, LLC v. YKK Corp., No. 15-cv-3411 (GHW), 2023 WL 2612204, at *7
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023) (granting motion for sanctions for party’s failure to provide
supplemental discovery after close of discovery and before trial)). But the Court has already
granted Plaintiff summary judgment. ECF No. 184. There will be no trial. Defendants have no
continuing obligation to supplement their discovery at this stage.
III.

Rule 69(a)(2)
To the extent Plaintiff seeks supplemental discovery in aid of a judgment under Rule

69(a)(1), such discovery is premature.
Rule 69 sets forth procedures for enforcement of money judgments. Under Rule 69(a)(2)
post-judgment discovery may be obtained from any person “[i]n aid of the judgment or execution
. . . .” Id. Rule 69(a)(2) does not apply before a judgment is entered. See
Parallel Iron LLC v. NetApp, Inc., 84 F. Supp. 3d 352, 362 (D. Del. 2015) (“[O]rdering
discovery before judgment has been entered would render Rule 69(a)(2) superfluous.”);
Braunstein v. Pickens, 274 F.R.D. 568, 571 (D.S.C. 2011) (“Rule 69 discovery requests are only
available after the defendant has failed to voluntarily comply with the judgment.”); Sanderson v.

2

Winner, 507 F.2d 477, 480 (10th Cir. 1974) (concluding that there is no right to discovery of
assets under Rule 69 until judgment is obtained). A judgment has not yet been entered in this
case; therefore, a motion to compel supplemental discovery under Rule 69(a)(2) is premature.
Plaintiff’s letter motion to compel supplemental discovery is DENIED. Defendants’
request for fees, costs, and expenses is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate the motion at ECF No. 194.
SO ORDERED.

DATED:

SARAH NETBURN
United States Magistrate Judge

October 6, 2023
New York, New York

3