From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CBF Industria De Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 18, 2021
13-CV-2581 (PKC) (JLC) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2021)

Opinion

13-CV-2581 (PKC) (JLC)

08-18-2021

CBF INDUSTRIA DE GUSA S/A, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMCI HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants.


ORDER

James L. Cott, United States Magistrate Judge

For the reasons set forth in an Opinion and Order to be filed today temporarily under seal, Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part, and sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be imposed on Defendants, consistent with the Opinion and Order. In addition, Plaintiffs' letter-motion for leave to file a reply expert report is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at Docket Nos. 447, 473, and 484, and mark Dkt. No. 447 as “granted in part and denied in part, ” Dkt. No. 473 as “denied as moot, ” and Dkt. No. 484 as “granted.”

As the Opinion and Order refers to information that has been redacted in the parties' motion papers and the accompanying exhibits, it will be temporarily filed under seal (and provided only to the parties and to Judge Castel in unredacted form by email). The parties will have until August 23 at 5:00 p.m. to advise the Court by email of proposed redactions, if any, for the Court's review, and the Court will then determine how the Opinion and Order will be filed on the public docket.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

CBF Industria De Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 18, 2021
13-CV-2581 (PKC) (JLC) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2021)
Case details for

CBF Industria De Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CBF INDUSTRIA DE GUSA S/A, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMCI HOLDINGS, INC., et…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Aug 18, 2021

Citations

13-CV-2581 (PKC) (JLC) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2021)

Citing Cases

Minnie Rose LLC v. Yu

. he obligation arises when “the party having control over the evidence” has “notice that the evidence is…

Minnie Rose LLC v. Yu

To prove a violation of Rule 37(e)(2), the moving party must first show that the nonmoving “party failed to…