DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCH DATE FILED: 10/27/2025 SEHRA WAHEED, Plaintiff, ORDER -V- 24-CV-6476 (AT) (HJR) NICKOLAOS RENTOULIS, ET AL., Defendants.

HENRY J. RICARDO, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants’ answer as a sanction for failure to comply with discovery obligations. ECF No. 257. For the reasons described below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. I. DISCUSSION Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ answer as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. ECF No. 257. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks this sanction under Rule 37(b) for failure to comply with a court order and Rule 37(d) for a party’s failure to attend its own deposition, serve answers to interrogatories, or respond to a request for inspection. Plaintiff argues that Defendants did not produce any documents in response to Plaintiff's discovery demands, requesting, among other things, surveillance footage, valuation documents, and certified notice records. ECF No. 257 at 10. This request for relief is substantively identical to Plaintiff's earlier request, ECF No. 226 at 2-3, which was denied, ECF No. 235 at 6. Plaintiff has not identified an intervening change of controlling law, new evidence, error, or manifest injustice

that would require reconsideration of the Court’s prior order. See Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr.,

(2d Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). As the Court stated in its September 17, 2025 Order, ECF No. 235, fact discovery closed on August 29, 2025. Plaintiff did not file a motion to compel discovery before the discovery period closed, nor did she seek an extension of time to complete discovery. Further, Plaintiff does not identify any discovery order of this Court that Defendants have failed to obey, nor does she assert that she properly noticed a deposition at which any party failed to appear. Thus, there is no basis to impose sanctions under Rule 37. Il. CONCLUSION As the Court has found no basis to issue sanctions or to strike the Storage Defendants’ answer, Plaintiffs motion at ECF No. 257 is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 27, 2025 7 / | CL New York, New York ° He J. Ricar United States Magistrate Judge