Carfora v. Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN CARFORA, SANDRA PUTNAM, and JUAN GONZALES, Plaintiffs, -v.- 25 Misc. 314 (KPF) PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, Defendant. JOHN CARFORA, SANDRA PUTNAM, and JUAN GONZALES, Plaintiffs, 25 Misc. 315 (KPF) -v.- NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, Defendant. JOHN CARFORA, SANDRA PUTNAM, and JUAN GONZALES, Plaintiffs, 25 Misc. 316 (KPF) -v.- OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE, Defendant. JOHN CARFORA, SANDRA PUTNAM, and JUAN GONZALES, 25 Misc. 321 (KPF) Plaintiffs, -v.- CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Defendant.

JOHN CARFORA, SANDRA PUTNAM, and JUAN GONZALES, Plaintiffs, 25 Misc. 346 (KPF) -v.- TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, Defendant. JOHN CARFORA, SANDRA PUTNAM, and JUAN GONZALES, Plaintiffs, 25 Civ. 6123 (KPF) -v.- THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: Each of the above-captioned cases has been assigned to this Court because it arises from Plaintiffs’ issuance of subpoenas in a related case, Carfora v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, 21 Civ. 8384 (KPF). The Court's understanding is that there are no additional subpoena- related matters that Plaintiffs expect to be transferred to this Court. (See 21 Civ. 8384 (KPF), Dkt. #131, 133, 134). The Court further understands that the subpoena recipients (collectively, “Respondents”) have not produced documents in response to Plaintiffs’ subpoenas. (See 21 Civ. 8384, Dkt. #129). Plaintiffs now wish to compel compliance with those subpoenas. (Id.). This Order schedules motion practice with respect to Plaintiffs’

subpoenas, which the Court understands will be in the form of contested motions to compel. Given its understanding that the issues implicated by Plaintiffs’ subpoenas are common across Respondents, the Court strongly prefers consolidated briefing on Plaintiffs’ motions to compel and, to the degree possible, Respondents’ motions to quash. (E.g., 21 Civ. 8384, Dkt. #122). To give the parties adequate time to prepare such consolidated briefing, the Court adopts the following briefing schedule:  Plaintiffs shall file their motions to compel on or before September 26, 2025;  Respondents shall file their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motions (and, if and as necessary, any related motions motions to quash), on or before October 31, 2025; and  Plaintiffs shall file their reply submissions on or before November 21, 2025. Upon receipt of Plaintiffs’ reply, the Court will schedule a hearing on the motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to file this Order in each of the cases captioned above, and in Case No. 21 Civ. 8384 (KPF). SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2025 New York, New York __________________________________ KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge