Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP

Filing 120

ORDER denying 111 Motion to Vacate 111 MOTION to Vacate Court's Judgement on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint dated June 15th 2020 (doc# 48). MOTION for Recusal; denying 111 Motion for Recusal. Followin g a telephone conference today, for which the Plaintiff failed to appear, the Court hereby ORDERS, as follows: 1. For the reasons stated on the record during today's call. Plaintiff's motion to partially vacate my June 15, 2020 Order wit h respect to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and for my disqualification (ECF No. 111), is DENIED. Any motion seeking to challenge my June 15, 2020 Order is untimely. In addition, such motion is largely moot since Plaintiff already has filed a Third Amended Complaint and a proposed Fourth Amended Complaint. I previously denied Plaintiff's requests for me to disqualify myself in Orders dated September 1, 2020 (ECF No. 68) and October 5, 2020 (ECF No. 103). There are no valid grounds for disqualification. Plaintiff's failure to participate in today's call is noted by the Court. Any further failures by Plaintiff to comply with Orders of the Court may result in sanctions. SO ORDERED. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 10/13/2020) (kl)

Case 1:19-cv-10578-AJN-SDA Document 120 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

10/13/2020

Ashu Shukla,
Plaintiff,
-against-

1:19-cv-10578 (AJN) (SDA)
ORDER

Deloitte Consulting LLP,
Defendant.
STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge:
Following a telephone conference today, for which the Plaintiff failed to appear,1 the
Court hereby ORDERS, as follows:
1.

For the reasons stated on the record during today’s call. Plaintiff’s motion to

partially vacate my June 15, 2020 Order with respect to Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint, and for my disqualification (ECF No. 111), is DENIED. Any motion seeking to
challenge my June 15, 2020 Order is untimely. In addition, such motion is largely moot since
Plaintiff already has filed a Third Amended Complaint and a proposed Fourth Amended
Complaint. I previously denied Plaintiff’s requests for me to disqualify myself in Orders dated
September 1, 2020 (ECF No. 68) and October 5, 2020 (ECF No. 103). There are no valid grounds
for disqualification.
2.

No later than October 27, 2020, Defendant shall serve on Plaintiff a log of

documents withheld from production based upon the attorney-client privilege and/or the
work product doctrine, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
There were no substantive discussions during today’s conference with counsel for the Defendant prior
to my issuing the rulings set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6 above. Either party may order a copy of the
transcript of the conference, if he or it wishes.
1

Case 1:19-cv-10578-AJN-SDA Document 120 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 3

3.

Interrogatories in this case shall be “restricted to those seeking names of

witnesses with knowledge of information relevant to the subject matter of the action, the
computation of each category of damage alleged, and the existence, custodian, location and
general description of relevant documents,” in accordance with Local Civil Rule 33.3(a); provided,
however, that the parties may agree between themselves, pursuant to Rule 29(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, to have the Plaintiff serve interrogatories on any witnesses, in lieu of
taking their depositions.
4.

No later than October 20, 2020, the parties shall file a proposed Protective Order

in the form of the model available at https://cutt.ly/7gpzKac.
5.

No later than October 27, 2020, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendant unredacted

versions of any documents he previously produced with redactions, subject to the terms of the
Protective Order to be entered in this action.
6.

The Court defers ruling on the parties’ other discovery disputes until after it issues

its rulings on the motions pending at ECF No. 56 and ECF No. 92.
7.

In the interim, the Court expects the parties to cooperate in document production,

to the extent not in dispute, and Defendant shall supplement its document production (as
indicated in its September 30 letter), 2 no later than November 16, 2020.
8.

Plaintiff’s failure to participate in today’s call is noted by the Court. Any further

failures by Plaintiff to comply with Orders of the Court may result in sanctions.
SO ORDERED.

See Def.’s 9/30/2020 Ltr., ECF No. 101, at 3 (“Defendant has already produced over 2,000 pages of
documents (and plans to further supplement its response).”)

2

2

Case 1:19-cv-10578-AJN-SDA Document 120 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 3

Dated:

New York, New York
October 13, 2020
______________________________
STEWART D. AARON
United States Magistrate Judge

3