Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York et al

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying without prejudice to renewal 68 Letter Motion for Discovery. The motion is denied without prejudice to renewal upon a proper showing of relevance and only after the parties have met and conferred. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 68. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 11/18/2022) (va)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
:
RURADAN CORPORATION,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
CITY OF NEW YORK et al,
:
:
Defendants.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

11/18/2022

22-cv-3074 (LJL)
MEMORANDUM &
ORDER

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, to compel production of
documents by Defendants Jin Choi, Matthew Ahn, Raymond Kim, L&K 48 Venture, Inc., and
JLEE 19 Corp. (the “Toasties Defendants”). Dkt. No. 68. Plaintiff argues (1) that the Toasties
Defendants have waived any objections to the document request by failing to serve a timely
response; and (2) that the Toasties Defendants’ objections are without merit. The motion is
denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s argument that the Toasties Defendants have waived their objections rests on
the proposition that the document request was properly served. But Plaintiff served the requests
only by email and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) permits service by email only if the
opposing party has consented in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E); Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar
Capital LLC, 33 F.4th 693, 696 (2d Cir. 2022). Defendants represent they have provided no
such consent and Plaintiff introduces no evidence to the contrary. (The parties are encouraged to
consent to service by email.)
As to the merits, the Toasties Defendants represent that they have provided all documents
in their possession, custody, and control responsive to categories (b), (c), (f), and (g) on page 2 of

Dkt. No. 68. Categories (a) (all communications between the parties) and (e) (photographs) are
overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case as currently drafted, Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1), and the Toasties Defendants have represented that they have produced all
communications between the parties concerning the alleged nonpayment of rent, the vacating of
the premises, and “anything else related to Plaintiff’s claims in this action.” Dkt. No. 71 at 2.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated the relevance of the documents in categories (h) through (l) or, as
to the tax returns (category k), that the returns are relevant to the subject matter of the action and
that a compelling need exists for them because the information is not readily obtainable from a
less intrusive source. See Xiao Hong Zheng v. Perfect Team Corp., 739 F. App’x 658, 660 (2d
Cir. 2018) (holding that due to the private nature of the sensitive information contained in tax
returns and the public interest in encouraging the filing by taxpayers of complete and accurate
returns, the requesting party “bears the burden of establishing both relevancy and a compelling
need for the tax returns” (internal citations and quotations omitted)); Melendez v. Primavera
Meats, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 143, 145 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
The motion is denied without prejudice to renewal upon a proper showing of relevance
and only after the parties have met and conferred.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 68.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2022
New York, New York

__________________________________
LEWIS J. LIMAN
United States District Judge

2