Charlestown Capital Advisors, LLC v. Acero Junction, Inc. et al
| Charlestown Capital Advisors, LLC |
| Acero Junction, Inc., Acero Junction Holdings, Inc. and JSM International Limited |
| 1:2018cv04437 |
| May 18, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| John G. Koeltl |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
187
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER terminating 157 Motion for Attorney Fees. Applying the various reductions discussed above (and rounding the reduced hours to thenearest one-tenth of an hour) produces the sum of $55,230, as shown in the following chart:Na me Hourly Rate Sought Hourly Rate Awarded Hours Sought Hours Awarded Total: Samuel Lonergan $970-1,065, $600, 22.1, 11.1, $6,660; Robert Grass 970-1,065, 600,36.9, 27.7, 16,620; Susan Hu 795-875, 450, 61.5, 29.1, 13,095; Ryan Holmes 50 0-520, 450, 41.9, 41.9, 18,855; TOTAL $55,230. Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants Acero Junction, Inc. and Acero Junction Holdings, Inc. are to pay plaintiff Charlestown Capital Advisors, LLC the sum of $55,230 within 30 day s of the date of this Memorandum and Order. The liability is joint and several.The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 157. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 4/20/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
155
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 124 MOTION for Sanctions [Notice of Motion for Spoliation Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)] filed by Charlestown Capital Advisors, LLC. For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's motion for sanct ions (Dkt. No. 124) is GRANTED IN PART. It is hereby ORDERED that the Acero Defendants shall pay the expenses, including attorneys' fees and out-of-pocket costs, reasonably incurred by Charlestown as a result of their failure to preserve Jateen Kapoor's emails, including the fees and costs reasonably incurred to discover the spoliation, to review the evidence from Kapoor's laptop, offered in place of evidence from the Kapoor Account, and to obtain this Opinion and Order. The monet ary sanctions shall be imposed jointly and severally upon Junction and Holdings. It is further ORDERED that Charlestown shall submit one or more declarations evidencing its recoverable fees and costs no later than October 14, 2020. All sums requested must be supported by admissible evidence, including properly authenticated copies of counsel's relevant time and expense records. The Acero Defendants may file a response limited to the amount of Charlestown's recoverable fees and costs n o later than October 28, 2020. There shall be no reply. It is further ORDERED that the Acero Defendants are precluded from arguing or offering testimony or other evidence to show that Kapoor did not send or receive any emails that have been produced by other parties and that show any of Kapoor's known email addresses as the sender or a recipient. For example, Kapoor may not deny that the January 12 Email appeared in his inbox, in the ordinary course, at or shortly after the time it was sent by Charlestown. Is further ORDERED that Charlestown may present evidence to the finder of fact at trial regarding the deletion of the Kapoor Account and the loss of the Segregated Emails. In the event this case is tried to a jury, Charlestown may se ek an appropriate jury instruction, the wording of which will be at the discretion of the trial judge, allowing the jury to consider that loss of that evidence, and the circumstances of its loss, in evaluating witness credibility and otherwise making its determinations. It is further ORDERED that no later than October 14, 2020, the parties shall submit a joint status update. Discovery having concluded, the parties shall advise the Court as to whether any party intends to file a motion for summar y judgment. If so, the parties shall succinctly outline the grounds on which they intend to seek or oppose summary judgment, and shall seek a pre-motion conference before the Hon. John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge. Alternatively, if no par ty intends to move for summary judgment, the parties shall propose a deadline to file a joint pre-trial order in accordance with the individual practices of Judge Koeltl. This Opinion and Order disposes of the motion at Dkt. No. 124. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 9/30/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
154
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 153 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. No conference is required. Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants may reopen the deposition of Maheshwari, Weber, or Smith (defendants& #039; option) for a maximum of two hours of additional questioning arising from the documents previously withheld as privileged. Reopening all three depositions is not warranted by the needs of the case or by anything in defendants' letter (mo st of which is devoted to rehashing their arguments in support of their last discovery motion, which was resolved on February 14, 2020). Moreover, once the previously withheld documents were produced, defendants waited more than three months (incl uding more than one month after the last meet and confer) before bringing the instant motion. As to Grossman, defendants have made no showing linking the the newly disclosed documents to any material testimony he could supply. For these reasons, no fees will be awarded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). The reopened deposition shall take place on or before June 30, 2020, on a date and at a time reasonably convenient to counsel and the witness. The deposition shall be conducted remotely an d may be recorded by any reliable audio or audiovisual means. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3) and (b)(4). This order does not dispense with the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5), including the requirement that (unless the parties sti pulate otherwise) the deposition be "conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28," and that the deponent be placed under oath by that officer. For avoidance of doubt, a deposition will be deemed to have been conducte d "before" an officer so long as that officer attends the deposition via the same remote means (e.g., teleconference or video conference) used to connect all other remote participants, and so long as all participants (including the officer) can clearly hear and be heard by all other participants. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 6/8/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER: In light of the ongoing national public health emergency, the oral argument scheduled for April 28, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., will be conducted telephonically. At that time, the parties shall call into the below teleconference: Call in number: 888-557-8511 Access Code: 7746387. SO ORDERED., ( Telephone Conference set for 4/28/2020 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 3/19/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
149
MEMO ENDORSEMENT denying as moot 112 Motion for Attorney Fees; 148 JOINT LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses from Samuel Lonergan dated March 13, 2020 re: Fee Applications. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. The motions for attorneys' fees at Dkt. Nos. 112 and 141 are DENIED as MOOT. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 3/16/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
143
ORDER SCHEDULING ORAL ARGUMENT: Judge Moses will hold oral argument on the plaintiff's pending motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 124) on April 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. ( Oral Argument set for 4/8/2020 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 3/2/2020) (mro)
|
|
Filing
140
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, plaintiff must promptly produce Documents HIMA_00332554-55, HIMA_00795702, and HIMA_00986934, together with any other documents previously withheld on the ground that John Weber, Lee Smith, or Kenne th Grossman was acting an attorney for Charlestown. In addition, plaintiff must produce any otherwise-privileged documents or communications that were disclosed to Grossman, as well as those produced to other non-employees unaffiliated with its couns el. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), JSW is entitled to an award of its attorneys' fees and related expenses reasonably incurred after January 21, 2020 to obtain the relief granted herein. JSW shall submit its fee application no l ater than February 28, 2020, supported by contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney or other timekeeper, the date of service, the hours expended, and the nature of the work performed, and by properly authenticated documentation of all r eimbursable expenses. Charlestown may submit responding papers no later than March 6, 2020, limited to the amount of the fees and other expenses to be awarded and the allocation of the award among plaintiff and its counsel. There shall be no reply. (Motions due by 2/28/2020. Responses due by 3/6/2020) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 2/14/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
123
ORDER granting 122 Letter Motion to Stay. Time for moving for summary judgment is stayed pending a decision of the Rule 37(e) motion before the Magistrate Judge. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick, Part I on 1/2/2020) (mro)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
