MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. 1199SEIU Benefit and Pension Funds

Filing 45

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 42 Letter Motion for Discovery. Following a telephone conference with the parties, and for the further reasons stated on the record, it is hereby ORDERED, as follows: 1. Defendant's Letter Motion (ECF No. 42), insofar as it seeks to withdraw deemed admissions and seeks an enlargement of time to respond to them, is GRANTED INPART and DENIED IN PART. I find, in my discretion, that withdrawal of the deemed admissions would promote the presen tation of the merits of the action and I am not persuaded that it would prejudice the Plaintiff in maintaining the action on the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); see also River Light V, L.P. v. Lin & J Intern., Inc., 299 F.R.D.61, 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ("Even where the moving party's neglect is unjustified, a refusal to permit withdrawal of deemed admissions may be an overly harsh sanction when a deemed admission would be dispositive of the litigation and no unfair prejudice wou ld result from withdrawal."). No later than October 23, 2020, Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions (ECF No. 42-1.) 2. Insofar as Defendant's Letter Motion (ECF No. 42) seeks to enlarge the t ime for Defendant to respond to the pending summary judgment motion, it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any application regarding the summary judgment motion shall be addressed to District Judge Oetken in accordance with his Individual Rules. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 10/13/2020) (kl)

Case 1:20-cv-01480-JPO-SDA Document 45 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
10/13/2020

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC,
Plaintiff,
-against-

1:20-cv-01480 (JPO) (SDA)
ORDER

1199SEIU Benefit and Pension Funds,
Defendant.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge:
Following a telephone conference with the parties, and for the further reasons stated on
the record, it is hereby ORDERED, as follows:
1. Defendant’s Letter Motion (ECF No. 42), insofar as it seeks to withdraw deemed
admissions and seeks an enlargement of time to respond to them, is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART. I find, in my discretion, that withdrawal of the deemed
admissions would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and I am not
persuaded that it would prejudice the Plaintiff in maintaining the action on the merits.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); see also River Light V, L.P. v. Lin & J Intern., Inc., 299 F.R.D.
61, 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“Even where the moving party’s neglect is unjustified, a refusal
to permit withdrawal of deemed admissions may be an overly harsh sanction when a
deemed admission would be dispositive of the litigation and no unfair prejudice would
result from withdrawal.”). No later than October 23, 2020, Defendant shall respond
to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions (ECF No. 42-1.)

Case 1:20-cv-01480-JPO-SDA Document 45 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2

2. Insofar as Defendant’s Letter Motion (ECF No. 42) seeks to enlarge the time for
Defendant to respond to the pending summary judgment motion, it is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any application regarding the summary judgment motion shall
be addressed to District Judge Oetken in accordance with his Individual Rules.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:

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

2