Go New York Tours, Inc. v. Aurora Tourism Services, LLC et al
Filing
151
ORDER: First, both cases cited by Plaintiff are instances where a court stayed discovery, halting one Party's obligation until the other complied with a court order. Those cases do not support Plaintiffs unilateral decision to refuse to pro duce documents. In the absence of a stay issued by this Court, Plaintiff has no authority to unilaterally inform this Court that it will not participate in discovery. Second, Defendants have repeatedly represented to this Court that no responsive do cuments remain for production. Dkt. Nos. 143, 150. By contrast, Plaintiff admits that it has not complied with its discovery obligations. Dkt. No. 149. Defendants confirmed that failure, stating Plaintiff has not produced "a single document th at [they] agreed to produce." Dkt. No. 143. Plaintiff is ordered to produce all previously agreed upon discovery by February 5, 2025. Plaintiff shall file a letter to the Court on February 5th confirming compliance with this Order. Defendants a re permitted to file a reply letter within three days informing the Court of any missing material. If Plaintiff does not comply with this Order, the Court shall issue an order to show cause as to why this Court should not recommend this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis on 1/29/2025) (tg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
GO NEW YORK TOURS, INC., d/b/a
“TOPVIEW SIGHTSEEING”,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
-against-
22-CV-10633 (DEH) (JW)
AURORA TOURISM SERVICES, LLC,
d/b/a “NEW YORK ICONIC TOURS” and
“NY ICONIC CRUISES,” and
OLUWABAMISE L. JEGEDE,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
JENNIFER E. WILLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
There has been a history of discovery disputes in this matter. As a result, on
April 18, 2024, the Court held a discovery conference and directed the parties to meet
and confer regarding outstanding discovery sought by Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 137. The
Parties were to determine if they could reach a meeting of the minds as to what the
items were and whether they existed. If the items existed, Defendants were to
produce them by May 16, 2024. Two weeks before the deadline for Defendants
production, the Parties filed a joint letter addressing discovery Plaintiff was set to
produce and failed entirely to address the Courts order regarding Defendants
production. Dkt. No. 141. The Court issued a memo endorsement requiring another
joint status letter by May 16, 2024. Dkt. No. 142.
On May 16, 2024, in violation of the Court’s order, the Court received a
unilateral letter from Plaintiff stating that Defendants produced some documents,
but Plaintiff was unsatisfied with the production and therefore “declines to produce
any further documents.” Dkt. No. 142. The letter also renewed Plaintiff’s request to
strike Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaims, and requested that the Court direct
the parties to submit a proposed schedule for depositions. Id. On May 17th, the Court
issued an order directing the Parties to file letters detailing compliance with the
Court’s instructions from the April 18th conference, ordering Defendants to respond
to Plaintiff’s letter, and ordering Plaintiff to provide the Court with any relevant
caselaw supporting its unauthorized decision to decline to produce documents.1 Dkt.
No. 144.
On May 17, 2024, prior to the Court’s order, Defendants filed a letter informing
the Court that they have produced all responsive documents in their possession and
Plaintiff had not produced “a single document that plaintiff agreed to produce.” Dkt.
No. 143. Defendants’ letter also requested the Court strike Plaintiff’s complaint given
the stated refusal to comply and if not, direct Plaintiff to comply with its agreed upon
discovery production before Monday May 20, 2024. Defendants also stated they were
available to schedule a continued deposition of the named Defendant. Id. Also on
May 17th, but after the Court’s order, Defendants agreed to file an additional letter
in compliance with the Court’s May 16th order. Dkt. No. 147.
On May 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter arguing that while Defendants
produced a small quantity of documents, the production was incomplete and listed
categories of supposed missing documents. Dkt. No. 149. Plaintiff’s letter then
acknowledged Plaintiff’s obligation to produce discovery but argues that Courts have
1 The Courts Order was dated May 16, 2024, but was not uploaded onto the docket until May 17th.
2
the discretion to stay a case until a party complies with a court order. Id. (citing
Austin Theatre, Inc v. Warner Bros Pictures, Inc., 22 F.R.D. 302 (S.D.N.Y. 1958) and
Scipione v. Advance Stores Co., 294 F.R.D. 659 (M.D. Fla. 2013)).
Also on May 20, 2024, Defendants filed a letter informing the Court that all
documents within their possession have been produced, and an additional search for
responsive documents occurred but yielded no results. Dkt. No. 150. Defendants also
renewed their request to strike Plaintiff’s complaint. Id.
First, both cases cited by Plaintiff are instances where a court stayed discovery,
halting one Party’s obligation until the other complied with a court order. Those cases
do not support Plaintiffs unilateral decision to refuse to produce documents. In the
absence of a stay issued by this Court, Plaintiff has no authority to unilaterally inform
this Court that it will not participate in discovery.
Second, Defendants have repeatedly represented to this Court that no
responsive documents remain for production.
Dkt. Nos. 143, 150. By contrast,
Plaintiff admits that it has not complied with its discovery obligations. Dkt. No. 149.
Defendants confirmed that failure, stating Plaintiff has not produced “a single
document that [they] agreed to produce.” Dkt. No. 143. Plaintiff is ordered to produce
all previously agreed upon discovery by February 5, 2025. Plaintiff shall file a letter
to the Court on February 5th confirming compliance with this Order. Defendants are
permitted to file a reply letter within three days informing the Court of any missing
material. If Plaintiff does not comply with this Order, the Court shall issue an order
3
to show cause as to why this Court should not recommend this case be dismissed for
failure to prosecute.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:
New York, New York
January 29, 2025
______________________________
JENNIFER E. WILLIS
United States Magistrate Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?