Kevin M Mentus V Gallina Development Corporation

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Plaintiff Kevin M. Mentus filed a copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent misrepresentation claim against Defendant Gallina Development Corporation, alleging he created an original sculptural lighting design called Infinitum Luminares and that in 2016 he submitted a proposal for a suspended light sculpture to be displayed in the Metropolitan building in Rochester, New York. Defendant allegedly obtained his concept, rejected his proposal, but commissioned an unauthorized derivative work based directly on his design. The Court considered three motions: (1) to enforce a subpoena against Hanlon Architects, (2) to compel discovery and impose sanctions against Defendant, and (3) for a limited extension of discovery time. All three motions were denied.

Issues

  • Whether sanctions and attorney's fees should be awarded to Hanlon or Defendant given the parties' conduct in discovery disputes, including Plaintiff's pro se status and the Court's prior warnings regarding potential fee-shifting sanctions.
  • Whether Plaintiff satisfied the meet and confer requirement under Rule 37(a)(1) and whether Defendant was properly withholding requested documents, requiring the Court to deny Plaintiff's motion to compel and associated sanctions request.
  • Whether there is good cause to grant Plaintiff's request for a one-sided extension of the discovery deadline, which would allow Plaintiff to enforce existing requests while barring Defendant from serving new discovery requests.
  • Whether Plaintiff's motion to enforce a Rule 45 subpoena served on non-party Hanlon Architects should be granted given Hanlon's full compliance with the subpoena, which rendered the motion moot.

Holdings

The court denies all three motions filed by pro se plaintiff Kevin M. Mentus. First, the motion to enforce a subpoena against Hanlon Architects is denied as moot because Hanlon had already fully complied with the subpoena by producing all responsive documents. Second, the motion to compel discovery and impose sanctions against Defendant Gallina Development Corporation is denied because the plaintiff failed to make a serious good faith effort to meet and confer regarding the discovery dispute as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). Third, the motion for an extension of time to complete discovery is denied due to lack of good cause. Additionally, Hanlon's request for attorney's fees and costs is denied.

Legal Principles

  • Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B), when a motion to compel discovery is denied in full or in part, the Court must require the unsuccessful movant to pay the opposing party's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, unless the motion was substantially justified. The Court warned Plaintiff that future motions to compel filed without evidence of good faith meet and confer efforts would be summarily denied. Additionally, Rule 45(d)(1) provides its own enforcement mechanisms for subpoenas, and the Court declined to award attorney's fees to Hanlon due to lack of specific notice regarding potential sanctions under Rule 45 for a pro se litigant.
  • Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires parties to confer or attempt to confer with the opposing party in good faith before filing discovery motions. The Court emphasized that the meet and confer requirement is not merely a box to be checked, but requires sincere, good faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel because he failed to satisfy this requirement, engaging in threats and ignoring defense counsel's attempts to find common meeting times rather than participating in a cooperative discovery process. The Court also noted that Rule 37(a)(5)(B) sanctions may be imposed when motions to compel are denied due to failure to comply with the meet and confer requirement.

Precedent Name

  • Baez Duran v. E L G Parking Inc.
  • Paget v. Principal Life Ins. Co.
  • Am. Sav. Bank, FSB v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc.
  • In re Dunne
  • Matalavage v. Sheriff of Niagara Cnty.
  • Pierre v. Cnty. of Nassau
  • Data Collective II, L.P. v. Baron Cap. Mgmt. Inc.
  • Mason Tenders Dist. Council of Greater N.Y. v. Phase Constr. Servs., Inc.
  • Papadimitriou v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP
  • Cisse v. Mitchell
  • Greer v. Carlson
  • Kochan v. Kowalski
  • Saliga v. Chemtura Corp.
  • Burton v. United States
  • Cohen v. Grp. Health Inc.
  • Toliver v. Rosbaugh
  • Head v. Artus
  • Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. TriZetto Grp., Inc.
  • Williams v. City of Rochester

Cited Statute

  • Rule 37(a)(5)(B) provides that a court must require the party who unsuccessfully moved to compel discovery to pay the opposing party's reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees, after giving an opportunity to be heard.
  • Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iv) allows opposing parties to move for orders compelling document production under Rule 34 when a party fails to produce requested materials.
  • Rule 37(a)(3)(B) provides that if a party fails to produce documents under Rule 34, the opposing party may move for an order to compel production.
  • Rule 37(a)(1) requires that a party moving to compel discovery must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party failing to make discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.
  • Rule 45 permits parties to serve subpoenas on non-parties commanding document production and provides mechanisms for enforcement and sanctions when non-parties fail to comply.
  • Rule 37(a)(5)(B)-(C) provides that when a motion to compel discovery is denied in full, the court must require the movant to pay the opposing party's reasonable expenses and attorney's fees, unless the motion was substantially justified or circumstances make an award unjust.
  • Rule 34 governs production of documents and things, requiring parties to produce documents within their possession, custody, or control that are not privileged or protected from disclosure.

Judge Name

Colleen D. Holland

Passage Text

  • The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to enforce the subpoena against Hanlon as moot. According to Hanlon's counsel, the company fully complied with Plaintiff's subpoena on July 28, 2025, by personally delivering approximately 120 files totaling roughly 700 megabytes on a flash drive, which constituted all responsive materials within its possession, custody, or control.
  • The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to complete discovery because there is no showing of good cause. The Scheduling Order clearly stated that no extensions would be granted except upon a showing of good cause, and the court finds no pattern of obstruction by Defendant that would justify a one-sided extension.
  • The Court finds that Plaintiff's conduct in attempting to meet and confer with Defendant was inconsistent with Rule 37(a)(1). Plaintiff engaged in a series of threats and at least twice ignored defense counsel's attempts to find a common time to meet, demanding Defendant comply with deadlines Plaintiff sought to unilaterally impose rather than participating in a cooperative effort.