Chugg v. QBE Americas, Inc., 18-CV-10221 (PGG)(SN). (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20200303e31
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ORDER SARAH NETBURN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court are several discovery disputes. See ECF Nos. 54-56. The Court enters the following rulings and discovery deadlines: • The Court understands that the Plaintiff and Defendant Santos exchanged many text messages during the November-December 2017 period. It is unclear whether Plaintiff has located any responsive communications as a result of counsel's review of Plaintiff's phone and if so, whether the number of responsive documents w
Summary: ORDER SARAH NETBURN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court are several discovery disputes. See ECF Nos. 54-56. The Court enters the following rulings and discovery deadlines: • The Court understands that the Plaintiff and Defendant Santos exchanged many text messages during the November-December 2017 period. It is unclear whether Plaintiff has located any responsive communications as a result of counsel's review of Plaintiff's phone and if so, whether the number of responsive documents wo..
More
ORDER
SARAH NETBURN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are several discovery disputes. See ECF Nos. 54-56. The Court enters the following rulings and discovery deadlines:
• The Court understands that the Plaintiff and Defendant Santos exchanged many text messages during the November-December 2017 period. It is unclear whether Plaintiff has located any responsive communications as a result of counsel's review of Plaintiff's phone and if so, whether the number of responsive documents would suggest that the search was adequate. If counsel has located and produced responsive documents in the volume that the parties reasonably expect, no further search is required. If not, Plaintiff must engage a forensic expert to search Plaintiff's phone during the period November-December 2017, and Plaintiff must produce all responsive documents located by that search by no later than March 20, 2020. Defendants and Plaintiff shall each be responsible for paying one-half the cost of engaging such expert.
• Plaintiff is directed to conduct a thorough search of her health insurance records and financial records, such as bank statements, dated between September 2017 and December 2017 to identify the health care provider she referenced visiting in late 2017. If Plaintiff is unable to identify the health care provider, she must provide Defendant a list of the records she consulted by March 20, 2020.
• Defendants' request to reopen the deposition of Plaintiff is denied.
• By no later than March 5, 2020, Plaintiff shall provide Defendants a list of all dates before and including March 31, 2020, on which Plaintiff's parents are available for depositions.
• To the extent Defendants request native format copies of all previously produced text, email, and WhatsApp communications with non-parties, the request is granted absent a showing by Plaintiff of undue burden.
• The close of all fact discovery is extended to March 31, 2020, solely for purposes of conducting the parents' depositions and responding to this order.
• Defendants' expert report shall be served within 14 days of the date upon which Plaintiffs' parents' depositions are completed.
• The close of all expert discovery is 14 days from service of Defendants' expert report.
CONCLUSION
No further extensions of time to complete discovery or comply with this Order will be granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 54 and 55.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
