USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: nnn nnn nnn nnn nnn acca DATE FILED:_10/17/2025 JUAN MURUDUMBAY, . Plaintiff, : : 25-cv-2610 (LJL) ~ MEMORANDUM AND 29 STREET STONE INC., et al, : ORDER Defendants.

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Juan Murudumbay moves, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g)(3) and 37(b), for an order imposing sanctions upon Defendants 29 Street Stone Inc, Rafael Gavartin and ABC Companies 1-10 and their counsel. Dkt. No. 54. The motion is DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(1) requires the attorney of record to sign each disclosure or discovery request, response, or objection and by signing certify, in pertinent part, that, “to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry,” the discovery response 1s consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that the disclosures are “complete and correct” as of the time they are made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). Rule 26(g)(3) gives the Court authority to impose sanctions for improper certifications. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3); see JMC Rest. Holding, LLC v. Pevida,

, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2016). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) gives the court authority to impose sanctions for failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). Plaintiff has not established a basis for sanctions. He challenges Defendants’ responses to the requests for admission. However, if Defendants have denied a matter and Plaintiff later

demonstrates that the denied matter is true, the appropriate remedy is that Defendants will have to pay Plaintiff's reasonable expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2). Plaintiff has not established that Defendants made an improper certification. Moreover, Defendants’ responses to the requests for admission do not violate a Court order. As to the responses to the requests for production, Plaintiff has failed to provide those responses to the Court.'! Moreover, Defendants aver that there are no documents responsive to the requests for production. Dkt. No. 58 at 2. “[A] party is not obliged to produce, at the risk of sanctions, documents that it does not possess or cannot obtain.” Shcherbakovskiy v. Da Capo Al Fine, Ltd.,

, 138 (2d Cir. 2007); see Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main Holding GmbH vy. RWE Trading Americas Inc.,

, 8 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order); Jn re Turquoise Hill Res. Ltd. Sec. Litig.,

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2025). If it turns out that Defendants failed to produce documents that are requested and over which they maintain custody, possession, or control or if it turns out that Defendants have failed to make a reasonably diligent search for documents, Plaintiff can renew his motion. See Mintz Fraade L. Firm, P.C. v. Brady,

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2021) (a party is required “to conduct a reasonable and diligent search for responsive documents”) (internal citation and quotation omitted). He has not demonstrated a violation or entitlement to relief on this record. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 54. SO ORDERED.

os Dated: October 17, 2025 wl SUC insane New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

' Plaintiff’s letter states that the responses are annexed as Exhibit 1. Dkt. No. 54 at 2. But there is no Exhibit | to Plaintiff’s letter.