Order | Filed: July 24, 2026
| Entered: July 24, 2026
Bartlett et al v. Societe Generale de Banque au Liban SAL et al
Other Statutory Actions | New York Eastern
~Util - Set Deadlines
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff and Defendant LCB's status report 542 , which represents that, rather than litigating the issue of whether the prior entry of default against LCB 203 was mooted by the filing of the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), Plaintiffs intend to move to renew the entry of default "predicated on LCB's failure to respond to the" TAC, in anticipation of moving for a default judgment, and that the parties have agreed to engage in discovery concerning "whether Plaintiffs successfully served the Second Amended Complaint." Letter, ECF 542, at 1. To the extent that these parties request that the Court enter a discovery schedule governing the exchange of RFPs and Interrogatories in service of this anticipated motion practice, the parties' requested relief is granted, on consent. By 8/5/2026 Plaintiffs shall serve requests for production and interrogatories on Defendant LCB, responses to which shall be due by 9/30/2026. The parties are respectfully advised that, prior to initiating any motion to compel practice, the parties must follow the undersigned's Individual Rule 3(a) regarding discovery disputes.
Notwithstanding the grant of the parties' requested relief to the extent described above, the Court reiterates that Plaintiffs must carefully consider the applicability of Moore v. Booth, 122 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2024) and Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872) in this case, and the appropriate timing of any anticipated motions for default, and note that timing alone may provide a basis to deny a motion for default judgment. See, e.g., Lemache v. Tunnel Taxi Mgmt., LLC, 354 F. Supp. 3d 149, 152-56 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) ([I]n a multi-defendant case where defendants are alleged to be jointly liable, entering a default judgment runs the risk of inconsistent judgments.... The proper course in such a situation is to postpone decision on the default judgment until the case against the litigating party concludes; if the litigating party loses, the default judgment can then be entered against the non-appearing party, and if the litigating party wins, the default judgment motion should be denied.). Additionally, to the extent that "[b]y agreeing to engage in discovery, LCB does not consent to the Courts personal jurisdiction and reserves all rights to move to dismiss, including for lack of proper service," Defendant LCB is respectfully reminded that any motion practice must be initiated in accordance with the Individual Motion Practices and Rules of the assigned District Judge. Report, ECF 542 , at 1 n.1. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 7/24/2026. (MJM)