Reid v. Lamas Beauty Inc.
ORDER with respect to 16 Letter Motion for Discovery. Defendant must file a letter indicating whether it agrees to a referral to the Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference no later than November 17, 2023. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 11/15/2023) (tg)
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
HARWOOD COURT, SUITE 415
SCARSDALE, NEW YORK 10583
DATE FILED: 11/15/2023
TEL. (917) 373-9128
November 14, 2023
The Honorable Valerie E. Caproni
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Reid v. Lamas Beauty Inc.
Case No. 1:23-cv-03159-VEC
Dear Judge Caproni:
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.2, your Honor’s Individual
Practices and Civil Cases, Paragraph 3B, and Paragraph 5d of the Civil Case Management Plan
and Scheduling Order (the “CMP”), Plaintiff is writing to Your Honor to seek assistance with
irreconcilable differences that the parties have regarding discovery disputes and regarding the
referral of the matter to a Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference.
On August 11, 2023, Your Honor “so ordered” the CMP [Docket # 11]. Paragraph 5d
called for the matter to be referred to a Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference
“immediately” or “after the close of fact discovery.” Defendant noted in the CMP that at the
time the CMP was “so ordered” it did “not have enough information from Plaintiff to
meaningfully engage in settlement discussions.” As of today, Plaintiff has responded to
Defendant’s discovery demands and NO objections have been raised. Therefore, Plaintiff believe
that this case is ready to be referred to a Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference.
The Discovery Dispute
Plaintiff served Defendant with its Request for Admissions, First Set of Interrogatories,
and Request for Production of Documents on August 28, 2023. After granting several extensions
of time to respond, responses were finally received on October 19, 2023.
The responses were, for lack of another term, non-responsive. Out of the 20 Requests for
Production of Documents, 19 were responded to with “Defendant respectfully refers Plaintiff to
Defendant’s website.” The referral to Defendant’s website is simply not an answer.
Hon. Valerie E. Caproni
November 14, 2023
With regard to the Interrogatories, out of the 19 Interrogatories, five (5) were responded
to with “Defendant respectfully refers Plaintiff to Defendant Rule 26(a) initial disclosures;” eight
(8) were responded to with “Defendant respectfully identifies AccessiBe.com
(https://accessibe.com). The remaining six (6) Interrogatories were not responded to with
anything other than objections. Not a single shred of paper was produced. Plaintiff would like to
remind the Court that the word “respectfully” does not does not relieve Defendant of its
obligations to respond.
Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to Defendant’s counsel to “meet and confer,” as is
required under the FRCP and Your Honor’s Rules. Getting an agreeable time to discuss was like
pulling teeth. Nevertheless, on October 31, 2023, a telephone call was held. Before discussing
the specifics of the discovery dispute, I raised the possibility of an amicable resolution with
Defendant’s counsel. He agreed that this would be a good idea and that he will discuss same with
his client. We agreed to reconnect a week later, after Defendant’s counsel had a chance to
discuss the matter with his client. I reached out to Defendant’s counsel on several occasions and
was notified that he did not talk to his client at all. We scheduled a second “meet and confer” on
November 9, 2023. Defendant’s counsel still had not talked to his client and made it clear that he
will not talk to his client about settlement – not sure if this is Defendant’s position or
Defendant’s counsel’s position. Defendant’s promise to discuss an amicable resolution was
simple a “delay tactic.” The Court should be reminded that this case was filed on April 17, 2023
– nearly 7 months ago - and Defendant has never shown any interest in discussing an amicable
resolution. We then proceeded to discuss the discovery dispute and Defendant’s counsel made it
clear that they will not produce any documents and will not respond to any Interrogatories
beyond what they already claim to have allegedly produced.
Following Your Honor’s Rules, I then asked Defendant’s counsel to provide me with
three (3) dates on which he is available to hold a joint call with Chambers. To date, I did not
receive a response.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Honor order that the parties appear for a
teleconference to discuss the discovery dispute or in the alternative, allow Plaintiff to submit a
letter motion to compel. In addition, the parties request that the matter be referred to a Magistrate
Judge for a settlement conference.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Dan Shaked, Esq.
cc: Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Defendant must file a letter indicating whether it agrees to a referral to the Magistrate Judge for a
settlement conference no later than November 17, 2023.
HON. VALERIE CAPRONI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?