Lee v. Karaoke City

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Beom Su Lee, DATE FILED:__ 8/5/2020 Plaintiff, 1:18-cv-03895 (PAE) (SDA) -against- ORDER Karaoke City et al., Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: Before the Court is Plaintiff’s August 1, 2020 Letter asking the Court to compel Defendants to provide the names of Defendants’ owners. (PI.’s Letter, ECF No. 146) In response, Defendants argue that Plaintiff never sought the owners’ names during the discovery period, which now is closed, and, in any event, such information is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. (Defs.’ Letter, ECF No. 147.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Discovery in this action closed on December 31, 2019, except for the limited purpose of allowing Defendants to seek documents from Korea, the deadline for which was extended until May 15, 2020. (See, e.g., 12/3/2019 Order, ECF No. 104; 3/30/2020 Order, ECF No. 113.) Thereafter, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for an extension of discovery, but did Order Defendants to provide Plaintiff with information regarding the names of the legal entities of Defendants. (6/8/2020 Order, ECF No. 140.) Defendants provided this information to Plaintiff on July 21, 2020. (Defs.’ Letter at 1.) As Defendants correctly point out, this information is separate and distinct from the names of the individual owners that Plaintiff now seeks. Thus, Plaintiff's request is untimely. Moreover, the Court agrees with Defendants that the names of the individual owners is not relevant to the claims at issue in this case. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to

obtain this information in anticipation of a future judgment, which he may wish to try to enforce against the individual owners, such discovery is not warranted now. If Plaintiff succeeds in this action, he will have the opportunity to pursue post-judgment discovery at an appropriate time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69; see also EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 207 (2d Cir. 2012) (“[B]road post-judgment discovery in aid of execution is the norm in federal and New York state courts.”). It is further Ordered that Plaintiff shall file his anticipated motion for summary judgment no later than August 14, 2020. Defendants opposition and anticipated cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed no later than September 4, 2020. Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion and Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion are due by September 18, 2020, and Defendants’ reply in support of their cross-motion is due by October 2, 2020. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York August 5, 2020 Risa hd, Car STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge