Grecia v. Brass Lion Entertainment, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 10 Motion ; denying 11 Motion to Compel; denying 15 Motion to Compel; denying 16 Motion to Compel. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motions at Docket Nos. 10, 11, 15, and 16 are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the pro se Plaintiff at the mailing address on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary Stein on 3/12/2025) (tg)

Case 1:25-cv-01484-JHR-GS

Document 17

Filed 03/12/25

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
WILLIAM GRECIA,
Plaintiff,
- against BRASS LION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
JUSTIN SMITH, BRYNA SMITH,
EDWARD ROBLES, and ROC NATION
LLC,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

25 Civ. 1484 (JHR) (GS)
ORDER

X
GARY STEIN, United States Magistrate Judge:
Over the past seven days, pro se Plaintiff William Grecia (“Plaintiff”) has
filed the following four motions: (1) “Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Oversight of DOJ
Handling of Withheld Regulation E Funds and Enforcement of Federal Law” (Dkt.
No. 10); (2) “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Disclosure of DOJ Criminal RICO
Evidence and Whistleblower Testimony” (Dkt. No. 11); (3) “Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Return of Regulation E Funds and Issue Sanctions Against Defendants”
(Dkt. No. 15); and (4) “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Currency
Transaction Reports (CTR) Pursuant to Regulation E and the Bank Secrecy Act”
(Dkt. No. 16). The Court has reviewed these motions along with two letters
Plaintiff submitted in support of the motions. (Dkt. Nos. 12 & 14). Plaintiff’s
motions are DENIED.
Plaintiff’s motions to compel disclosure of evidence from DOJ (Dkt. No. 11)
and to compel production of CTR reports (Dkt. No. 16) are motions for discovery. “A

Case 1:25-cv-01484-JHR-GS

Document 17

Filed 03/12/25

Page 2 of 4

party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as
required by Rule 26(f), except . . . by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). This
includes discovery both from other parties to the action and from third parties.
Desilva v. N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Sys. Inc., No. 10 Civ. 1341 (JFB)
(ETB), 2010 WL 3119629, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2010). Here, the parties have not
conferred as required by Rule 26(f) as the Defendants have not yet been served or
appeared in this action, so far as the docket reflects.
Under Rule 26(d)(1), courts may order expedited discovery prior to the Rule
26(f) meet and confer. “When determining whether to grant expedited discovery,
courts in this District apply a flexible standard of reasonableness and good cause.”
Colds v. Smyth, No. 22 Civ. 2023 (CS), 2023 WL 6258544, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26,
2023) (citation omitted). A variety of factors guide this inquiry, including, inter
alia, the relative prejudices that will be suffered by the parties, the plaintiff’s ability
to make out a prima facie claim, the specificity of the discovery request, the
necessity of the information for the plaintiff’s claim, and the proportionality of the
request. Id. at *4. “Expedited discovery is not the norm.” Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v.
Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 590 B.R. 200, 207 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018) (citation
omitted).
Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for expedited discovery or that his
discovery demands are reasonable. Indeed, they are frivolous. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel the U.S. Department of Justice to disclose “Criminal RICO Evidence and
Whistleblower Testimony” is purportedly for use in “Plaintiff’s pending civil RICO

2

Case 1:25-cv-01484-JHR-GS

Document 17

Filed 03/12/25

Page 3 of 4

case in SDNY (1:25-cv-01484)” (Dkt. No. 11) i.e., this case—which asserts no RICO
claim. (See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 16–23). His motion to compel production of Currency
Transaction Reports fails to identify what financial institutions he is seeking
discovery from. (Dkt. No. 16). And neither motion explains how the information
sought is even relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this action—which arise from the
purported breach of a non-disclosure agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant
Brass Lion Entertainment Inc. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 10-15)—or how Plaintiff would be
prejudiced by not obtaining expedited discovery.
Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to “exercise judicial oversight” over the
Department of Justice and compel it to act “to ensure the immediate return of
Plaintiff’s funds” (Dkt. No. 10) is likewise frivolous. This Court has no power to
direct the Department of Justice to initiate an investigation or enforcement action.
See, e.g., Brady v. Garland, No. 23 Civ. 212 (APM), 2023 WL 7213804, at *1 (D.D.C.
Sept. 29, 2023) (agreeing that court “lacks authority to compel [the Attorney
General] to investigate or prosecute, as that decision is within the Attorney
General’s discretion”).
Finally, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to return his “Regulation E
funds” (Dkt. No. 15) is essentially a reprise of Plaintiff’s previously filed motion for
a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 7). In a
Report & Recommendation to Judge Rearden on March 3, 2025, the undersigned
found Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction fatally flawed for

3

Case 1:25-cv-01484-JHR-GS

Document 17

Filed 03/12/25

Page 4 of 4

several reasons and recommended that it be denied. Nothing Plaintiff says now
causes the Court to reconsider its prior ruling.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motions at Docket Nos. 10, 11, 15,
and 16 are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy of
this Report and Recommendation to the pro se Plaintiff at the mailing address on
the docket.
SO ORDERED.

DATED:

New York, New York
March 12, 2025
______________________________
The Honorable Gary Stein
United States Magistrate Judge

4