Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp.

S.D. New York

Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp.

DecidedJune 5, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-09700

StatusUnknown

This text of Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp. (Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

[esses SY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | Doc #: _. □□ nnn X | DATE FILED: 6/5/2023 SANDRA L. CULLUM, et al., Plaintiffs, 22-CV-09700 (RA)(SN) -against- ORDER WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS CORP., et al., Defendants.

panne eX

SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiffs have filed two motions related to discovery. See ECF Nos. 38, 39. “A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). This case is not exempted from initial disclosure requirements, the parties have not held a Rule 26(f) conference, and the Court has not entered a Rule 16(b) scheduling order. “[A]bsent agreement or one of the[se] limited exceptions, a party seeking expedited discovery must obtain leave of the court.” Stern v. Cosby, 246 F.R.D. 453, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The Court does not intend to issue a Rule 16(b) order until Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss—one of which seeks to compel arbitration—are resolved. The Court also finds no basis for permitting expedited discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motions are premature, and denied without prejudice.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the gavels at ECF Nos. 38 and 39. SO ORDERED.

satan NETBURN United States Magistrate Judge DATED: June 5, 2023 New York, New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[esses SY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | Doc #: _. □□ nnn X | DATE FILED: 6/5/2023 SANDRA L. CULLUM, et al., Plaintiffs, 22-CV-09700 (RA)(SN) -against- ORDER WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS CORP., et al., Defendants.

panne eX

SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiffs have filed two motions related to discovery. See ECF Nos. 38, 39. “A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). This case is not exempted from initial disclosure requirements, the parties have not held a Rule 26(f) conference, and the Court has not entered a Rule 16(b) scheduling order. “[A]bsent agreement or one of the[se] limited exceptions, a party seeking expedited discovery must obtain leave of the court.” Stern v. Cosby, 246 F.R.D. 453, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The Court does not intend to issue a Rule 16(b) order until Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss—one of which seeks to compel arbitration—are resolved. The Court also finds no basis for permitting expedited discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motions are premature, and denied without prejudice.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the gavels at ECF Nos. 38 and 39. SO ORDERED.

satan NETBURN United States Magistrate Judge DATED: June 5, 2023 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cullum-v-wyndham-hotels-resorts-corp-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack