1022-00005 · Hargrove, Deluca & Stein LLP · Pleadings

preliminary-conference-order.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

74 / 78 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK COMMERCIAL DIVISION

MERIDIAN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS LLC,

Plaintiff,

-against-

NORTHGATE FIBER AMERICAS INC.,

Defendant.

Index No. 654321/2024

Assigned Justice: Hon. Eleanor M. Ricci

Part 49

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE ORDER

A preliminary conference having been held in this action on October 1, 2024, before the undersigned, Hon. Eleanor M. Ricci, Justice of the Supreme Court, sitting in Part 49 of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, New York County, at the courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007, and the following counsel having appeared:

For Plaintiff Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC:

Hargrove, Deluca & Stein LLP 51 West 52nd Street, 40th Floor New York, New York 10019

By: Thomas Deluca, Esq. (Lead Partner) and Miriam Vasquez, Esq. (Senior Associate)

For Defendant Northgate Fiber Americas Inc.:

Calderwood & Harkness LLP 425 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, New York 10022

By: Linda Osei, Esq. (Responsible Partner) and Jeffrey Park, Esq. (Lead Associate)

And it appearing to the Court that this action arises from the termination of a Master Construction Agreement dated March 15, 2020 (the "MCA") entered into between Plaintiff Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC ("Plaintiff" or "Meridian") and Defendant Northgate Fiber Americas Inc. ("Defendant" or "Northgate") relating to a fiber-optic build-out program across seven states, namely New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia;

And it further appearing that Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint on July 15, 2024; that Defendant served and filed its Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims on September 3, 2024; and that Plaintiff served and filed its Reply to Counterclaims on September 18, 2024;

And it further appearing that the pleadings in this action are now closed and that the parties, through their respective counsel, have conferred in good faith regarding a discovery schedule and related case management matters and have reached agreement on the terms set forth below;

Now, upon consideration of the record herein and the representations of counsel at the preliminary conference,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Nature of the Action and Amount in Controversy

This is a breach-of-contract action arising from the termination of a Master Construction Agreement valued at approximately $1.2 billion for the design, engineering, construction, and commissioning of fiber-optic telecommunications infrastructure. The MCA governed a multi-phase, multi-state build-out program spanning seven states.

Plaintiff Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC asserts four causes of action: (i) wrongful termination of the MCA; (ii) failure to pay outstanding invoices for work performed; (iii) wrongful withholding of retainage amounts due under the MCA; and (iv) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks damages in the aggregate amount of Two Hundred Million Dollars ($200,000,000), together with interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Defendant Northgate Fiber Americas Inc. asserts counterclaims seeking damages in the aggregate amount of One Hundred Forty-Nine Million Dollars ($149,000,000), comprised of claims for liquidated damages arising from alleged schedule delays, excess completion costs incurred by Northgate's replacement contractors, and costs of remediation of allegedly defective construction work.

The parties' contract contains a jury trial waiver provision (MCA § 22.4). Accordingly, both parties have confirmed that this action shall proceed as a bench trial before this Court.

2. Confidentiality Stipulation

The parties have agreed upon and submitted to the Court a Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Confidentiality of discovery Materials (the "Confidentiality Stipulation"). The Confidentiality Stipulation provides for two tiers of designation for documents and information produced or disclosed in this litigation:

(a) "Confidential" — designating materials containing proprietary business information, trade secrets, financial data, or other commercially sensitive information warranting protection from public disclosure; and

(b) "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" — designating materials of an especially sensitive nature, including competitively sensitive pricing information, strategic business plans, and other materials the disclosure of which to non-counsel personnel could cause substantial competitive harm, and which shall be disclosed only to outside litigation counsel and their retained experts, and not to any officer, director, employee, or agent of the opposing party.

The Confidentiality Stipulation, as submitted by the parties, is hereby SO ORDERED by the Court. The Confidentiality Stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference into this Order as if fully set forth herein. The terms of the Confidentiality Stipulation shall govern the treatment of all confidential materials produced in this litigation unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

3. E-discovery Protocol

The parties have agreed upon and submitted to the Court a Stipulated E-discovery Protocol and ESI Agreement (the "E-discovery Protocol") governing the identification, preservation, collection, processing, review, production, and hosting of electronically stored information ("ESI") in this action. The E-discovery Protocol addresses, among other things, the format of production (including load file specifications, metadata fields, and native file requirements), search methodology (including the use of agreed-upon search terms and technology-assisted review, if applicable), de-duplication procedures, the handling of email threading, and clawback procedures for the inadvertent production of privileged materials, consistent with the protections afforded under CPLR 3103 and the applicable rules of this Court.

The parties have jointly engaged Vantage Litigation Support LLC, located at 300 Vesey Street, Suite 600, New York, New York 10282, as the neutral hosting and processing vendor for the production and hosting of ESI in this action. The costs of Vantage Litigation Support LLC's services shall be allocated as set forth in the E-discovery Protocol.

The E-discovery Protocol, as submitted by the parties, is hereby SO ORDERED by the Court. The E-discovery Protocol is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated by reference into this Order as if fully set forth herein.

4. Document discovery

4(a). Service of Document Requests

Each party shall serve its first set of document requests upon the opposing party no later than October 8, 2024. Defendant has represented that it anticipates serving approximately fifty-six (56) document requests in its first set. Plaintiff has represented that it anticipates serving approximately sixty-two (62) document requests in its first set. The parties are encouraged to confer in an effort to narrow the scope of their respective document requests where possible and to eliminate duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome requests. Nothing in this Order shall preclude either party from serving additional document requests at a later date, subject to the continuing obligations set forth herein and the applicable provisions of the CPLR and the Commercial Division Rules.

4(b). Responses and Objections to Document Requests

Each party shall serve written responses and objections to the opposing party's first set of document requests no later than October 22, 2024. All responses and objections shall be served in compliance with CPLR 3122 and shall state with specificity the basis for any objections asserted. General or boilerplate objections are disfavored and may be deemed waived if not supported by particularized grounds.

4(c). Initial Document Productions

Each party shall substantially complete its initial document production no later than October 31, 2024. For purposes of this Order, "substantially complete" means that the producing party has collected, processed, reviewed, and produced the substantial majority of responsive, non-privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to the opposing party's first set of document requests. All productions shall be made in accordance with the E-discovery Protocol referenced in Section 3 of this Order, including with respect to format, Bates-numbering conventions, load file specifications, and metadata requirements.

4(d). Privilege Logs

Each party shall serve a privilege log no later than October 31, 2024, concurrent with the substantial completion of its initial document production. Privilege logs shall comply with the requirements of CPLR 3122 and shall identify, with respect to each document withheld or redacted on grounds of privilege, the following information to the extent applicable: the date of the document; the author(s) and recipient(s); a general description of the subject matter of the document sufficient to assess the claim of privilege without revealing the privileged content; and the specific privilege or protection asserted (including attorney-client privilege, attorney work product protection, or any other applicable privilege or immunity). The parties reserve the right to challenge the sufficiency of any privilege log entries through the meet-and-confer and letter-motion process set forth in Section 4(f) below.

4(e). Supplemental Productions

Each party shall have a continuing obligation to supplement its document production on a rolling basis as additional responsive documents are identified, whether through ongoing collection efforts, the identification of additional custodians, or otherwise. Supplemental productions shall be made promptly upon the identification of additional responsive materials and shall be substantially completed no later than December 31, 2024. All supplemental productions shall be accompanied by updated privilege logs to the extent additional documents are withheld on grounds of privilege.

4(f). Meet and Confer on discovery Disputes

The parties shall meet and confer in good faith before raising any discovery disputes with the Court. Such meet-and-confer efforts shall include, at a minimum, a telephone conference or in-person meeting between lead counsel (or their designees) during which the parties make a genuine effort to resolve the dispute without judicial intervention. Any unresolved disputes regarding document production, the sufficiency of responses and objections, privilege objections, or any other aspect of document discovery shall be raised by letter motion to the Court, on notice to opposing counsel, no later than fourteen (14) business days after the conclusion of the meet-and-confer process. Letter motions shall not exceed three (3) pages in length, exclusive of exhibits, and shall be accompanied by a certification that the parties have met and conferred in good faith and have been unable to resolve the dispute.

5. Interrogatories

5(a). Service of Interrogatories

Each party may serve up to twenty-five (25) interrogatories upon the opposing party, including all discrete subparts, no later than October 8, 2024. For purposes of this limitation, each subpart of an interrogatory that calls for a separate factual response shall be counted as a separate interrogatory. The parties are directed to propound interrogatories that are tailored to the specific issues in this action and to avoid interrogatories that are duplicative of information obtainable through document discovery or depositions.

5(b). Responses to Interrogatories

Verified responses and objections to interrogatories shall be served no later than October 22, 2024. All responses shall be verified under oath by a person with knowledge of the facts, as required by CPLR 3133. Objections shall be stated with specificity, and the responding party shall answer to the extent an interrogatory is not objectionable, notwithstanding any objection asserted to a particular portion of the interrogatory.

5(c). Supplemental Interrogatory Responses

Each party shall supplement its interrogatory responses as necessary to reflect information learned through the course of discovery. All supplemental interrogatory responses shall be served no later than December 31, 2024. The parties' obligation to supplement interrogatory responses shall continue through the close of discovery to the extent required by the CPLR and the Commercial Division Rules.

6. Third-Party discovery

6(a). Non-Party Subpoenas

Either party may serve subpoenas duces tecum upon non-parties in accordance with CPLR 3101(a)(4) and 3120. Subpoenas directed to non-party subcontractors and municipal permitting authorities shall be served no later than November 15, 2024. The parties have represented that they anticipate serving third-party subpoenas on approximately seven (7) subcontractors who performed work under the MCA or related subcontract agreements, and approximately three (3) municipal permitting authorities in jurisdictions where the fiber-optic build-out was conducted. The parties shall confer in good faith regarding the scope of any non-party subpoenas and shall endeavor to minimize the burden imposed upon non-parties to the extent practicable. Copies of all non-party subpoenas shall be served upon opposing counsel simultaneously with service upon the non-party.

6(b). Compliance Period for Non-Party Subpoenas

Non-party document productions in response to subpoenas served pursuant to Section 6(a) above shall be completed no later than January 15, 2025. In the event a non-party requires additional time to comply with a subpoena, the party that served the subpoena shall promptly notify the Court and opposing counsel and shall request an appropriate extension of the compliance deadline.

6(c). Objections and Motions to Quash

Any objections to non-party subpoenas, or motions to quash or modify such subpoenas, shall be filed within the time periods prescribed by CPLR 2304 and 3122. The parties are directed to meet and confer with the non-party (or its counsel) and with opposing counsel before filing any motion to quash or for a protective order relating to non-party discovery.

7. Depositions

7(a). Fact Witness Depositions — Schedule

Fact witness depositions shall be conducted during the following windows, on the dates specified below or as otherwise agreed by counsel:

First Deposition Window: November – December 2024

The following key fact witnesses shall be deposed during the first deposition window:

(i) Renata Voss (Vice President, US Network Infrastructure, Northgate Fiber Americas Inc.) — to be deposed on November 12–13, 2024 (two days). Ms. Voss was the senior Northgate executive responsible for oversight of the fiber-optic build-out program and is anticipated to testify regarding, among other things, the negotiation and execution of the MCA, Northgate's termination decision, and the parties' course of dealing during the performance period.

(ii) Sean Calloway (Director, Construction Management, Northgate Fiber Americas Inc.) — to be deposed on November 19, 2024 (one day). Mr. Calloway managed day-to-day construction operations on behalf of Northgate and is anticipated to testify regarding construction scheduling, quality assurance, and the circumstances surrounding alleged construction deficiencies.

(iii) Marcus Henley (Vice President, Field Operations, Northeast Division, Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC) — to be deposed on December 3–4, 2024 (two days). Mr. Henley oversaw Meridian's field operations across the Northeast corridor and is anticipated to testify regarding construction progress, change order negotiations, and the impact of alleged owner-caused delays.

(iv) Victor Sandoval (Managing Member and Chief Executive Officer, Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC) — to be deposed on December 10–11, 2024 (two days). Mr. Sandoval is anticipated to testify regarding the formation and negotiation of the MCA, high-level strategic decisions concerning the build-out program, the events leading to the termination of the MCA, and Meridian's damages claims.

Second Deposition Window: February – March 2025

The following additional fact witnesses shall be deposed during the second deposition window:

(v) Bridget Yeung (Chief Operating Officer, Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC) — to be deposed on February 4, 2025 (one day). Ms. Yeung is anticipated to testify regarding Meridian's operational and financial management of the MCA, including invoicing, retainage, and change order processing.

(vi) Helena Bright (Chief Financial Officer, Northgate Telecommunications PLC) — to be deposed on February 18, 2025 (one day). Ms. Bright is a resident of the United Kingdom and an officer of Northgate Telecommunications PLC, the UK parent entity of Defendant Northgate Fiber Americas Inc. Because Ms. Bright resides outside the jurisdiction of this Court and outside the United States, her deposition shall be taken by commission in London, England, United Kingdom, in accordance with applicable procedures. The parties' respective counsel shall confer and agree upon the arrangements for the commission, including the identity of the commissioner, the location of the deposition, and any logistical considerations. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon arrangements for the commission, either party may submit the matter to the Court for resolution by letter application.

(vii) Dominic Hale (General Counsel, Northgate Telecommunications PLC) — Plaintiff has noticed the deposition of Mr. Hale for February 25, 2025. Defendant has interposed objections to this deposition notice on grounds of attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, asserting that Mr. Hale's anticipated testimony would necessarily implicate privileged communications and mental impressions. These privilege objections remain pending and unresolved. The parties shall meet and confer in good faith regarding Plaintiff's deposition notice for Mr. Hale and the scope of any permissible testimony. If the parties are unable to resolve this dispute, the matter shall be brought before the Court by letter motion, with the moving party's letter not to exceed three (3) pages in length, and the opposing party's response letter not to exceed three (3) pages in length. The Court will determine whether the deposition may proceed and, if so, the permissible scope of examination.

(viii) Frank DiBello (Chief Executive Officer, Crestline Construction Group Inc.) — to be deposed on March 4, 2025 (one day). Mr. DiBello is a non-party witness. Crestline Construction Group Inc. served as a major subcontractor on certain segments of the fiber-optic build-out. Mr. DiBello is anticipated to testify regarding Crestline's performance under its subcontract with Meridian, the quality of construction work, and interactions with both Meridian and Northgate personnel. A deposition subpoena shall be served upon Mr. DiBello pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4) and in accordance with the requirements of CPLR 3107.

7(b). Duration and Conduct of Depositions

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the Court, each deposition shall be limited to seven (7) hours of examination per side, per witness, per day. The two-day depositions of Renata Voss, Marcus Henley, and Victor Sandoval reflect the agreement of counsel, reached following good-faith consultation, based on the anticipated scope and complexity of each witness's testimony and each witness's central role in the events giving rise to this litigation. All depositions shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts and the Commercial Division Rules. Depositions shall be recorded by stenographic means, and either party may arrange for videotaping at its own expense upon reasonable notice to opposing counsel.

7(c). Fact Witness Deposition Completion Deadline

All fact witness depositions, including depositions of both party witnesses and non-party witnesses, shall be completed no later than March 15, 2025.

7(d). Deposition Disputes

The parties shall meet and confer in good faith to resolve any scheduling disputes, disputes regarding the conduct of depositions, or disputes regarding the scope of permissible questioning before raising such disputes with the Court. In the event a dispute arises during the course of a deposition that cannot be resolved by counsel, the parties may contact Chambers to request a telephone conference with the Court, subject to the Court's availability.

8. Expert discovery

8(a). Expert Disclosures

Each party shall disclose the identity of its retained expert witnesses and provide a brief description of the subject matter of each expert's anticipated testimony no later than January 15, 2025. Expert disclosures shall include the expert's name, professional affiliation, area of expertise, and a general summary of the opinions expected to be offered.

Based upon representations made at the preliminary conference, the parties have identified the following retained experts:

Defendant's Retained Experts:

(i) Dr. Elinor Chazen of Lakeview Consulting Group LLC — construction and delay expert, who is expected to opine on issues relating to construction scheduling, critical path analysis, and the causes and responsibility for alleged project delays; and

(ii) Professor Gordon Whitfield of Pinnacle Economics LLC — damages expert, who is expected to opine on the quantification of Defendant's counterclaim damages, including liquidated damages calculations, excess completion costs, and remediation costs.

Plaintiff's Retained Experts:

(i) James Ochoa, P.E., of Keystone Project Advisory LLC — construction expert, who is expected to opine on construction quality, industry standards, owner-caused delays, and the reasonableness of Meridian's construction performance under the MCA; and

(ii) Dr. Natalie Forster of Westbrook Valuation Services Inc. — damages expert, who is expected to opine on the quantification of Plaintiff's damages, including lost profits, unpaid invoices, wrongfully withheld retainage, and related categories of harm.

The identification of experts at this stage is preliminary, and nothing in this Order shall preclude either party from retaining additional experts, subject to timely disclosure and the deadlines set forth herein.

8(b). Expert Reports

All initial expert reports shall be served no later than March 31, 2025. Expert reports shall comply with the requirements of CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) and shall include a complete statement of the expert's opinions and the basis therefor, the facts and data considered by the expert, any exhibits to be used in support of the expert's opinions, the expert's qualifications and list of publications, a list of cases in which the expert has testified at trial or by deposition during the preceding four years, and a statement of the compensation to be paid for the expert's study and testimony.

8(c). Rebuttal Expert Reports

All rebuttal expert reports shall be served no later than May 15, 2025. Rebuttal reports shall be limited to responding to the opinions and analyses set forth in the opposing party's initial expert reports and shall not introduce new opinions or theories of liability or damages not fairly responsive to the initial reports.

8(d). Expert Depositions

Expert depositions shall be conducted during the month of June 2025. Specific dates for expert depositions shall be arranged by counsel in good faith. All expert depositions shall be completed no later than June 30, 2025. Each expert deposition shall be limited to seven (7) hours of examination per side unless otherwise agreed by counsel or ordered by the Court.

9. Dispositive Motions

9(a). Summary Judgment Motions

Any motions for summary judgment, whether for full or partial summary judgment, shall be filed and served no later than August 15, 2025. Motions for summary judgment shall comply with the requirements of CPLR 3212 and Commercial Division Rule 19-a, including the submission of a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue.

Opposition papers, including any cross-motion for summary judgment, shall be filed and served no later than September 15, 2025. Opposition papers shall include a response to the moving party's statement of material facts, identifying each fact as to which the opposing party contends a genuine issue exists, with citation to admissible evidence in the record.

Reply papers shall be filed and served no later than September 30, 2025. Reply papers shall be limited to matters raised in the opposition and shall not introduce new arguments or evidence not fairly responsive to the opposition.

The Court will schedule oral argument on any dispositive motions at an appropriate time following the submission of reply papers, with a target decision date in advance of the trial window set forth in Section 12 below, so as to enable the parties to prepare for trial with the benefit of any rulings on dispositive motions.

10. Settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution

The parties are encouraged to explore settlement at all stages of this litigation. The Court recognizes that this is a complex commercial dispute involving substantial sums in controversy and that early resolution, if achievable, would serve the interests of both parties and the efficient administration of justice. Counsel are directed to discuss the possibility of settlement with their respective clients on an ongoing basis.

The Court may schedule a settlement conference at the request of either party or sua sponte at any point during the pendency of this action. Any request for a settlement conference should be made by letter to Chambers, with a copy to opposing counsel.

The Court will consider a referral to mediation or other form of alternative dispute resolution at an appropriate juncture, including following the completion of fact discovery or expert discovery, if the parties believe that such a referral would be productive. Either party may request such a referral by letter application to the Court.

11. Pre-Trial Proceedings

11(a). Pre-Trial Conference

A pre-trial conference shall be held on a date to be set by the Court in October 2025, approximately four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of trial. At the pre-trial conference, the Court and counsel will address, among other things, the anticipated length of trial, the number of witnesses to be called by each side, the anticipated use of deposition testimony, any evidentiary issues that should be resolved in advance of trial, and any other matters necessary to ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of the bench trial.

11(b). Pre-Trial Submissions

Pre-trial submissions shall be filed in accordance with the Commercial Division Rules and a schedule to be set at the pre-trial conference or by separate order of this Court. Pre-trial submissions shall include, at a minimum, the following:

(a) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law;

(b) motions in limine, together with any opposition papers;

(c) exhibit lists identifying all documentary and demonstrative exhibits to be offered at trial, with copies of all exhibits to be pre-marked and exchanged between the parties;

(d) witness lists identifying all witnesses to be called at trial, together with a brief summary of each witness's anticipated testimony and the estimated duration of direct examination; and

(e) deposition designations and counter-designations, identifying the specific portions of deposition transcripts to be offered at trial.

12. Trial

A bench trial is scheduled for a six (6)-week window commencing in November 2025. The specific start date for trial shall be confirmed by the Court and communicated to counsel at or following the pre-trial conference. Trial shall be held in Part 49, 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007, before the undersigned, Hon. Eleanor M. Ricci, J.S.C.

As noted in Section 1 above, the parties have waived their right to a jury trial pursuant to Section 22.4 of the MCA. This action shall accordingly be tried to the bench.

13. Compliance Conferences

The parties shall appear for compliance conferences on the following dates, or as rescheduled by the Court upon notice to counsel:

(a) January 27, 2025 — This compliance conference will address the status of document discovery, the progress of fact depositions, and any pending discovery disputes. To the extent any discovery motions have been filed and are pending as of this date, the Court may schedule oral argument on such motions to coincide with the compliance conference.

(b) April 2025 (specific date to be determined) — This compliance conference will serve as a post-expert-report status check, to address the status of expert discovery, any disputes regarding expert disclosures or expert reports, and the progress of the overall case schedule.

(c) July 2025 (specific date to be determined) — This compliance conference will serve as a post-expert-deposition and pre-dispositive-motion status check, to address the completion of all discovery, the anticipated filing of summary judgment motions, and any pre-trial matters that may require the Court's attention.

The Court may schedule additional compliance conferences as necessary. Counsel are expected to appear at all scheduled compliance conferences unless excused by the Court.

14. Summary Schedule

The following table consolidates all key dates and deadlines established by this Order for ease of reference. In the event of any inconsistency between this summary table and the specific provisions set forth in the body of this Order, the specific provisions of this Order shall control.

15. Reservations and Modifications

This Order may be modified by the Court upon application of either party for good cause shown, or by written stipulation of the parties submitted to the Court with leave of Court. Any request for modification of the deadlines or other terms of this Order shall be made promptly upon the party's becoming aware of the need for such modification, and shall be accompanied by a showing of good cause for the requested change, including an explanation of any impact the modification would have on other deadlines and on the overall case schedule.

Nothing in this Order shall limit either party's right to seek expedited relief, emergency relief, or protective orders as necessary to protect its rights or the integrity of the discovery process.

All provisions of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts, and the Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court not inconsistent with the terms of this Order shall continue to apply to this action in full force and effect.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2024 New York, New York

________________________________________

Hon. Eleanor M. Ricci, J.S.C. Supreme Court of the State of New York New York County, Commercial Division

SERVICE:

Copies of this Order have been provided to:

Thomas Deluca, Esq. Hargrove, Deluca & Stein LLP 51 West 52nd Street, 40th Floor New York, New York 10019 Counsel for Plaintiff Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC

Linda Osei, Esq. Calderwood & Harkness LLP 425 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, New York 10022 Counsel for Defendant Northgate Fiber Americas Inc.

Deadline / Event	Date
Service of first document requests and interrogatories	October 8, 2024
Responses and objections to document requests and interrogatories	October 22, 2024
Substantial completion of initial document productions and privilege logs	October 31, 2024
Non-party subpoenas served	November 15, 2024
Fact depositions — first window (Voss, Calloway, Henley, Sandoval)	November – December 2024
Supplemental document productions and interrogatory responses	December 31, 2024
Non-party document production compliance	January 15, 2025
Expert disclosures	January 15, 2025
Compliance conference / oral argument on discovery motions	January 27, 2025
Fact depositions — second window (Yeung, Bright, Hale (if ordered), DiBello)	February – March 2025
Completion of all fact depositions	March 15, 2025
Initial expert reports	March 31, 2025
Compliance conference	April 2025 (TBD)
Rebuttal expert reports	May 15, 2025
Expert depositions	June 2025
Completion of all expert depositions	June 30, 2025
Compliance conference	July 2025 (TBD)
Summary judgment motions filed	August 15, 2025
Oppositions to summary judgment	September 15, 2025
Replies on summary judgment	September 30, 2025
Pre-trial conference	October 2025 (TBD)
Trial (6-week window)	November 2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK COMMERCIAL DIVISION
MERIDIAN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS LLC,
Plaintiff,
-against-
NORTHGATE FIBER AMERICAS INC.,
Defendant.
Index No. 654321/2024
Assigned Justice: Hon. Eleanor M. Ricci
Part 49
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE ORDER
A preliminary conference having been held in this action on October 1, 2024, before the undersigned, Hon. Eleanor M. Ricci, Justice of the Supreme Court, sitting in Part 49 of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, New York County, at the courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007, and the following counsel having appeared:
For Plaintiff Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC:
Hargrove, Deluca & Stein LLP 51 West 52nd Street, 40th Floor New York, New York 10019
By: Thomas Deluca, Esq. (Lead Partner) and Miriam Vasquez, Esq. (Senior Associate)
For Defendant Northgate Fiber Americas Inc.:
Calderwood & Harkness LLP 425 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, New York 10022
By: Linda Osei, Esq. (Responsible Partner) and Jeffrey Park, Esq. (Lead Associate)
And it appearing to the Court that this action arises from the termination of a Master Construction Agreement dated March 15, 2020 (the "MCA") entered into between Plaintiff Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC ("Plaintiff" or "Meridian") and Defendant Northgate Fiber Americas Inc. ("Defendant" or "Northgate") relating to a fiber-optic build-out program across seven states, namely New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia;
And it further appearing that Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint on July 15, 2024; that Defendant served and filed its Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims on September 3, 2024; and that Plaintiff served and filed its Reply to Counterclaims on September 18, 2024;
And it further appearing that the pleadings in this action are now closed and that the parties, through their respective counsel, have conferred in good faith regarding a discovery schedule and related case management matters and have reached agreement on the terms set forth below;
Now, upon consideration of the record herein and the representations of counsel at the preliminary conference,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Nature of the Action and Amount in Controversy
This is a breach-of-contract action arising from the termination of a Master Construction Agreement valued at approximately $1.2 billion for the design, engineering, construction, and commissioning of fiber-optic telecommunications infrastructure. The MCA governed a multi-phase, multi-state build-out program spanning seven states.
Plaintiff Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC asserts four causes of action: (i) wrongful termination of the MCA; (ii) failure to pay outstanding invoices for work performed; (iii) wrongful withholding of retainage amounts due under the MCA; and (iv) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks damages in the aggregate amount of Two Hundred Million Dollars ($200,000,000), together with interest, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Defendant Northgate Fiber Americas Inc. asserts counterclaims seeking damages in the aggregate amount of One Hundred Forty-Nine Million Dollars ($149,000,000), comprised of claims for liquidated damages arising from alleged schedule delays, excess completion costs incurred by Northgate's replacement contractors, and costs of remediation of allegedly defective construction work.
The parties' contract contains a jury trial waiver provision (MCA § 22.4). Accordingly, both parties have confirmed that this action shall proceed as a bench trial before this Court.
2. Confidentiality Stipulation
The parties have agreed upon and submitted to the Court a Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Confidentiality of discovery Materials (the "Confidentiality Stipulation"). The Confidentiality Stipulation provides for two tiers of designation for documents and information produced or disclosed in this litigation:
(a) "Confidential" — designating materials containing proprietary business information, trade secrets, financial data, or other commercially sensitive information warranting protection from public disclosure; and
(b) "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" — designating materials of an especially sensitive nature, including competitively sensitive pricing information, strategic business plans, and other materials the disclosure of which to non-counsel personnel could cause substantial competitive harm, and which shall be disclosed only to outside litigation counsel and their retained experts, and not to any officer, director, employee, or agent of the opposing party.
The Confidentiality Stipulation, as submitted by the parties, is hereby SO ORDERED by the Court. The Confidentiality Stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference into this Order as if fully set forth herein. The terms of the Confidentiality Stipulation shall govern the treatment of all confidential materials produced in this litigation unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
3. E-discovery Protocol
The parties have agreed upon and submitted to the Court a Stipulated E-discovery Protocol and ESI Agreement (the "E-discovery Protocol") governing the identification, preservation, collection, processing, review, production, and hosting of electronically stored information ("ESI") in this action. The E-discovery Protocol addresses, among other things, the format of production (including load file specifications, metadata fields, and native file requirements), search methodology (including the use of agreed-upon search terms and technology-assisted review, if applicable), de-duplication procedures, the handling of email threading, and clawback procedures for the inadvertent production of privileged materials, consistent with the protections afforded under CPLR 3103 and the applicable rules of this Court.
The parties have jointly engaged Vantage Litigation Support LLC, located at 300 Vesey Street, Suite 600, New York, New York 10282, as the neutral hosting and processing vendor for the production and hosting of ESI in this action. The costs of Vantage Litigation Support LLC's services shall be allocated as set forth in the E-discovery Protocol.
The E-discovery Protocol, as submitted by the parties, is hereby SO ORDERED by the Court. The E-discovery Protocol is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated by reference into this Order as if fully set forth herein.
4. Document discovery
4(a). Service of Document Requests
Each party shall serve its first set of document requests upon the opposing party no later than October 8, 2024. Defendant has represented that it anticipates serving approximately fifty-six (56) document requests in its first set. Plaintiff has represented that it anticipates serving approximately sixty-two (62) document requests in its first set. The parties are encouraged to confer in an effort to narrow the scope of their respective document requests where possible and to eliminate duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome requests. Nothing in this Order shall preclude either party from serving additional document requests at a later date, subject to the continuing obligations set forth herein and the applicable provisions of the CPLR and the Commercial Division Rules.
4(b). Responses and Objections to Document Requests
Each party shall serve written responses and objections to the opposing party's first set of document requests no later than October 22, 2024. All responses and objections shall be served in compliance with CPLR 3122 and shall state with specificity the basis for any objections asserted. General or boilerplate objections are disfavored and may be deemed waived if not supported by particularized grounds.
4(c). Initial Document Productions
Each party shall substantially complete its initial document production no later than October 31, 2024. For purposes of this Order, "substantially complete" means that the producing party has collected, processed, reviewed, and produced the substantial majority of responsive, non-privileged documents within its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to the opposing party's first set of document requests. All productions shall be made in accordance with the E-discovery Protocol referenced in Section 3 of this Order, including with respect to format, Bates-numbering conventions, load file specifications, and metadata requirements.
4(d). Privilege Logs
Each party shall serve a privilege log no later than October 31, 2024, concurrent with the substantial completion of its initial document production. Privilege logs shall comply with the requirements of CPLR 3122 and shall identify, with respect to each document withheld or redacted on grounds of privilege, the following information to the extent applicable: the date of the document; the author(s) and recipient(s); a general description of the subject matter of the document sufficient to assess the claim of privilege without revealing the privileged content; and the specific privilege or protection asserted (including attorney-client privilege, attorney work product protection, or any other applicable privilege or immunity). The parties reserve the right to challenge the sufficiency of any privilege log entries through the meet-and-confer and letter-motion process set forth in Section 4(f) below.
4(e). Supplemental Productions
Each party shall have a continuing obligation to supplement its document production on a rolling basis as additional responsive documents are identified, whether through ongoing collection efforts, the identification of additional custodians, or otherwise. Supplemental productions shall be made promptly upon the identification of additional responsive materials and shall be substantially completed no later than December 31, 2024. All supplemental productions shall be accompanied by updated privilege logs to the extent additional documents are withheld on grounds of privilege.
4(f). Meet and Confer on discovery Disputes
The parties shall meet and confer in good faith before raising any discovery disputes with the Court. Such meet-and-confer efforts shall include, at a minimum, a telephone conference or in-person meeting between lead counsel (or their designees) during which the parties make a genuine effort to resolve the dispute without judicial intervention. Any unresolved disputes regarding document production, the sufficiency of responses and objections, privilege objections, or any other aspect of document discovery shall be raised by letter motion to the Court, on notice to opposing counsel, no later than fourteen (14) business days after the conclusion of the meet-and-confer process. Letter motions shall not exceed three (3) pages in length, exclusive of exhibits, and shall be accompanied by a certification that the parties have met and conferred in good faith and have been unable to resolve the dispute.
5. Interrogatories
5(a). Service of Interrogatories
Each party may serve up to twenty-five (25) interrogatories upon the opposing party, including all discrete subparts, no later than October 8, 2024. For purposes of this limitation, each subpart of an interrogatory that calls for a separate factual response shall be counted as a separate interrogatory. The parties are directed to propound interrogatories that are tailored to the specific issues in this action and to avoid interrogatories that are duplicative of information obtainable through document discovery or depositions.
5(b). Responses to Interrogatories
Verified responses and objections to interrogatories shall be served no later than October 22, 2024. All responses shall be verified under oath by a person with knowledge of the facts, as required by CPLR 3133. Objections shall be stated with specificity, and the responding party shall answer to the extent an interrogatory is not objectionable, notwithstanding any objection asserted to a particular portion of the interrogatory.
5(c). Supplemental Interrogatory Responses
Each party shall supplement its interrogatory responses as necessary to reflect information learned through the course of discovery. All supplemental interrogatory responses shall be served no later than December 31, 2024. The parties' obligation to supplement interrogatory responses shall continue through the close of discovery to the extent required by the CPLR and the Commercial Division Rules.
6. Third-Party discovery
6(a). Non-Party Subpoenas
Either party may serve subpoenas duces tecum upon non-parties in accordance with CPLR 3101(a)(4) and 3120. Subpoenas directed to non-party subcontractors and municipal permitting authorities shall be served no later than November 15, 2024. The parties have represented that they anticipate serving third-party subpoenas on approximately seven (7) subcontractors who performed work under the MCA or related subcontract agreements, and approximately three (3) municipal permitting authorities in jurisdictions where the fiber-optic build-out was conducted. The parties shall confer in good faith regarding the scope of any non-party subpoenas and shall endeavor to minimize the burden imposed upon non-parties to the extent practicable. Copies of all non-party subpoenas shall be served upon opposing counsel simultaneously with service upon the non-party.
6(b). Compliance Period for Non-Party Subpoenas
Non-party document productions in response to subpoenas served pursuant to Section 6(a) above shall be completed no later than January 15, 2025. In the event a non-party requires additional time to comply with a subpoena, the party that served the subpoena shall promptly notify the Court and opposing counsel and shall request an appropriate extension of the compliance deadline.
6(c). Objections and Motions to Quash
Any objections to non-party subpoenas, or motions to quash or modify such subpoenas, shall be filed within the time periods prescribed by CPLR 2304 and 3122. The parties are directed to meet and confer with the non-party (or its counsel) and with opposing counsel before filing any motion to quash or for a protective order relating to non-party discovery.
7. Depositions
7(a). Fact Witness Depositions — Schedule
Fact witness depositions shall be conducted during the following windows, on the dates specified below or as otherwise agreed by counsel:
First Deposition Window: November – December 2024
The following key fact witnesses shall be deposed during the first deposition window:
(i) Renata Voss (Vice President, US Network Infrastructure, Northgate Fiber Americas Inc.) — to be deposed on November 12–13, 2024 (two days). Ms. Voss was the senior Northgate executive responsible for oversight of the fiber-optic build-out program and is anticipated to testify regarding, among other things, the negotiation and execution of the MCA, Northgate's termination decision, and the parties' course of dealing during the performance period.
(ii) Sean Calloway (Director, Construction Management, Northgate Fiber Americas Inc.) — to be deposed on November 19, 2024 (one day). Mr. Calloway managed day-to-day construction operations on behalf of Northgate and is anticipated to testify regarding construction scheduling, quality assurance, and the circumstances surrounding alleged construction deficiencies.
(iii) Marcus Henley (Vice President, Field Operations, Northeast Division, Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC) — to be deposed on December 3–4, 2024 (two days). Mr. Henley oversaw Meridian's field operations across the Northeast corridor and is anticipated to testify regarding construction progress, change order negotiations, and the impact of alleged owner-caused delays.
(iv) Victor Sandoval (Managing Member and Chief Executive Officer, Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC) — to be deposed on December 10–11, 2024 (two days). Mr. Sandoval is anticipated to testify regarding the formation and negotiation of the MCA, high-level strategic decisions concerning the build-out program, the events leading to the termination of the MCA, and Meridian's damages claims.
Second Deposition Window: February – March 2025
The following additional fact witnesses shall be deposed during the second deposition window:
(v) Bridget Yeung (Chief Operating Officer, Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC) — to be deposed on February 4, 2025 (one day). Ms. Yeung is anticipated to testify regarding Meridian's operational and financial management of the MCA, including invoicing, retainage, and change order processing.
(vi) Helena Bright (Chief Financial Officer, Northgate Telecommunications PLC) — to be deposed on February 18, 2025 (one day). Ms. Bright is a resident of the United Kingdom and an officer of Northgate Telecommunications PLC, the UK parent entity of Defendant Northgate Fiber Americas Inc. Because Ms. Bright resides outside the jurisdiction of this Court and outside the United States, her deposition shall be taken by commission in London, England, United Kingdom, in accordance with applicable procedures. The parties' respective counsel shall confer and agree upon the arrangements for the commission, including the identity of the commissioner, the location of the deposition, and any logistical considerations. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon arrangements for the commission, either party may submit the matter to the Court for resolution by letter application.
(vii) Dominic Hale (General Counsel, Northgate Telecommunications PLC) — Plaintiff has noticed the deposition of Mr. Hale for February 25, 2025. Defendant has interposed objections to this deposition notice on grounds of attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, asserting that Mr. Hale's anticipated testimony would necessarily implicate privileged communications and mental impressions. These privilege objections remain pending and unresolved. The parties shall meet and confer in good faith regarding Plaintiff's deposition notice for Mr. Hale and the scope of any permissible testimony. If the parties are unable to resolve this dispute, the matter shall be brought before the Court by letter motion, with the moving party's letter not to exceed three (3) pages in length, and the opposing party's response letter not to exceed three (3) pages in length. The Court will determine whether the deposition may proceed and, if so, the permissible scope of examination.
(viii) Frank DiBello (Chief Executive Officer, Crestline Construction Group Inc.) — to be deposed on March 4, 2025 (one day). Mr. DiBello is a non-party witness. Crestline Construction Group Inc. served as a major subcontractor on certain segments of the fiber-optic build-out. Mr. DiBello is anticipated to testify regarding Crestline's performance under its subcontract with Meridian, the quality of construction work, and interactions with both Meridian and Northgate personnel. A deposition subpoena shall be served upon Mr. DiBello pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4) and in accordance with the requirements of CPLR 3107.
7(b). Duration and Conduct of Depositions
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the Court, each deposition shall be limited to seven (7) hours of examination per side, per witness, per day. The two-day depositions of Renata Voss, Marcus Henley, and Victor Sandoval reflect the agreement of counsel, reached following good-faith consultation, based on the anticipated scope and complexity of each witness's testimony and each witness's central role in the events giving rise to this litigation. All depositions shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts and the Commercial Division Rules. Depositions shall be recorded by stenographic means, and either party may arrange for videotaping at its own expense upon reasonable notice to opposing counsel.
7(c). Fact Witness Deposition Completion Deadline
All fact witness depositions, including depositions of both party witnesses and non-party witnesses, shall be completed no later than March 15, 2025.
7(d). Deposition Disputes
The parties shall meet and confer in good faith to resolve any scheduling disputes, disputes regarding the conduct of depositions, or disputes regarding the scope of permissible questioning before raising such disputes with the Court. In the event a dispute arises during the course of a deposition that cannot be resolved by counsel, the parties may contact Chambers to request a telephone conference with the Court, subject to the Court's availability.
8. Expert discovery
8(a). Expert Disclosures
Each party shall disclose the identity of its retained expert witnesses and provide a brief description of the subject matter of each expert's anticipated testimony no later than January 15, 2025. Expert disclosures shall include the expert's name, professional affiliation, area of expertise, and a general summary of the opinions expected to be offered.
Based upon representations made at the preliminary conference, the parties have identified the following retained experts:
Defendant's Retained Experts:
(i) Dr. Elinor Chazen of Lakeview Consulting Group LLC — construction and delay expert, who is expected to opine on issues relating to construction scheduling, critical path analysis, and the causes and responsibility for alleged project delays; and
(ii) Professor Gordon Whitfield of Pinnacle Economics LLC — damages expert, who is expected to opine on the quantification of Defendant's counterclaim damages, including liquidated damages calculations, excess completion costs, and remediation costs.
Plaintiff's Retained Experts:
(i) James Ochoa, P.E., of Keystone Project Advisory LLC — construction expert, who is expected to opine on construction quality, industry standards, owner-caused delays, and the reasonableness of Meridian's construction performance under the MCA; and
(ii) Dr. Natalie Forster of Westbrook Valuation Services Inc. — damages expert, who is expected to opine on the quantification of Plaintiff's damages, including lost profits, unpaid invoices, wrongfully withheld retainage, and related categories of harm.
The identification of experts at this stage is preliminary, and nothing in this Order shall preclude either party from retaining additional experts, subject to timely disclosure and the deadlines set forth herein.
8(b). Expert Reports
All initial expert reports shall be served no later than March 31, 2025. Expert reports shall comply with the requirements of CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) and shall include a complete statement of the expert's opinions and the basis therefor, the facts and data considered by the expert, any exhibits to be used in support of the expert's opinions, the expert's qualifications and list of publications, a list of cases in which the expert has testified at trial or by deposition during the preceding four years, and a statement of the compensation to be paid for the expert's study and testimony.
8(c). Rebuttal Expert Reports
All rebuttal expert reports shall be served no later than May 15, 2025. Rebuttal reports shall be limited to responding to the opinions and analyses set forth in the opposing party's initial expert reports and shall not introduce new opinions or theories of liability or damages not fairly responsive to the initial reports.
8(d). Expert Depositions
Expert depositions shall be conducted during the month of June 2025. Specific dates for expert depositions shall be arranged by counsel in good faith. All expert depositions shall be completed no later than June 30, 2025. Each expert deposition shall be limited to seven (7) hours of examination per side unless otherwise agreed by counsel or ordered by the Court.
9. Dispositive Motions
9(a). Summary Judgment Motions
Any motions for summary judgment, whether for full or partial summary judgment, shall be filed and served no later than August 15, 2025. Motions for summary judgment shall comply with the requirements of CPLR 3212 and Commercial Division Rule 19-a, including the submission of a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue.
Opposition papers, including any cross-motion for summary judgment, shall be filed and served no later than September 15, 2025. Opposition papers shall include a response to the moving party's statement of material facts, identifying each fact as to which the opposing party contends a genuine issue exists, with citation to admissible evidence in the record.
Reply papers shall be filed and served no later than September 30, 2025. Reply papers shall be limited to matters raised in the opposition and shall not introduce new arguments or evidence not fairly responsive to the opposition.
The Court will schedule oral argument on any dispositive motions at an appropriate time following the submission of reply papers, with a target decision date in advance of the trial window set forth in Section 12 below, so as to enable the parties to prepare for trial with the benefit of any rulings on dispositive motions.
10. Settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution
The parties are encouraged to explore settlement at all stages of this litigation. The Court recognizes that this is a complex commercial dispute involving substantial sums in controversy and that early resolution, if achievable, would serve the interests of both parties and the efficient administration of justice. Counsel are directed to discuss the possibility of settlement with their respective clients on an ongoing basis.
The Court may schedule a settlement conference at the request of either party or sua sponte at any point during the pendency of this action. Any request for a settlement conference should be made by letter to Chambers, with a copy to opposing counsel.
The Court will consider a referral to mediation or other form of alternative dispute resolution at an appropriate juncture, including following the completion of fact discovery or expert discovery, if the parties believe that such a referral would be productive. Either party may request such a referral by letter application to the Court.
11. Pre-Trial Proceedings
11(a). Pre-Trial Conference
A pre-trial conference shall be held on a date to be set by the Court in October 2025, approximately four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of trial. At the pre-trial conference, the Court and counsel will address, among other things, the anticipated length of trial, the number of witnesses to be called by each side, the anticipated use of deposition testimony, any evidentiary issues that should be resolved in advance of trial, and any other matters necessary to ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of the bench trial.
11(b). Pre-Trial Submissions
Pre-trial submissions shall be filed in accordance with the Commercial Division Rules and a schedule to be set at the pre-trial conference or by separate order of this Court. Pre-trial submissions shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(a) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law;
(b) motions in limine, together with any opposition papers;
(c) exhibit lists identifying all documentary and demonstrative exhibits to be offered at trial, with copies of all exhibits to be pre-marked and exchanged between the parties;
(d) witness lists identifying all witnesses to be called at trial, together with a brief summary of each witness's anticipated testimony and the estimated duration of direct examination; and
(e) deposition designations and counter-designations, identifying the specific portions of deposition transcripts to be offered at trial.
12. Trial
A bench trial is scheduled for a six (6)-week window commencing in November 2025. The specific start date for trial shall be confirmed by the Court and communicated to counsel at or following the pre-trial conference. Trial shall be held in Part 49, 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007, before the undersigned, Hon. Eleanor M. Ricci, J.S.C.
As noted in Section 1 above, the parties have waived their right to a jury trial pursuant to Section 22.4 of the MCA. This action shall accordingly be tried to the bench.
13. Compliance Conferences
The parties shall appear for compliance conferences on the following dates, or as rescheduled by the Court upon notice to counsel:
(a) January 27, 2025 — This compliance conference will address the status of document discovery, the progress of fact depositions, and any pending discovery disputes. To the extent any discovery motions have been filed and are pending as of this date, the Court may schedule oral argument on such motions to coincide with the compliance conference.
(b) April 2025 (specific date to be determined) — This compliance conference will serve as a post-expert-report status check, to address the status of expert discovery, any disputes regarding expert disclosures or expert reports, and the progress of the overall case schedule.
(c) July 2025 (specific date to be determined) — This compliance conference will serve as a post-expert-deposition and pre-dispositive-motion status check, to address the completion of all discovery, the anticipated filing of summary judgment motions, and any pre-trial matters that may require the Court's attention.
The Court may schedule additional compliance conferences as necessary. Counsel are expected to appear at all scheduled compliance conferences unless excused by the Court.
14. Summary Schedule
The following table consolidates all key dates and deadlines established by this Order for ease of reference. In the event of any inconsistency between this summary table and the specific provisions set forth in the body of this Order, the specific provisions of this Order shall control.
15. Reservations and Modifications
This Order may be modified by the Court upon application of either party for good cause shown, or by written stipulation of the parties submitted to the Court with leave of Court. Any request for modification of the deadlines or other terms of this Order shall be made promptly upon the party's becoming aware of the need for such modification, and shall be accompanied by a showing of good cause for the requested change, including an explanation of any impact the modification would have on other deadlines and on the overall case schedule.
Nothing in this Order shall limit either party's right to seek expedited relief, emergency relief, or protective orders as necessary to protect its rights or the integrity of the discovery process.
All provisions of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts, and the Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court not inconsistent with the terms of this Order shall continue to apply to this action in full force and effect.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 1, 2024 New York, New York
________________________________________
Hon. Eleanor M. Ricci, J.S.C. Supreme Court of the State of New York New York County, Commercial Division
SERVICE:
Copies of this Order have been provided to:
Thomas Deluca, Esq. Hargrove, Deluca & Stein LLP 51 West 52nd Street, 40th Floor New York, New York 10019 Counsel for Plaintiff Meridian Infrastructure Partners LLC
Linda Osei, Esq. Calderwood & Harkness LLP 425 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, New York 10022 Counsel for Defendant Northgate Fiber Americas Inc.
Deadline / Event | Date
Service of first document requests and interrogatories | October 8, 2024
Responses and objections to document requests and interrogatories | October 22, 2024
Substantial completion of initial document productions and privilege logs | October 31, 2024
Non-party subpoenas served | November 15, 2024
Fact depositions — first window (Voss, Calloway, Henley, Sandoval) | November – December 2024
Supplemental document productions and interrogatory responses | December 31, 2024
Non-party document production compliance | January 15, 2025
Expert disclosures | January 15, 2025
Compliance conference / oral argument on discovery motions | January 27, 2025
Fact depositions — second window (Yeung, Bright, Hale (if ordered), DiBello) | February – March 2025
Completion of all fact depositions | March 15, 2025
Initial expert reports | March 31, 2025
Compliance conference | April 2025 (TBD)
Rebuttal expert reports | May 15, 2025
Expert depositions | June 2025
Completion of all expert depositions | June 30, 2025
Compliance conference | July 2025 (TBD)
Summary judgment motions filed | August 15, 2025
Oppositions to summary judgment | September 15, 2025
Replies on summary judgment | September 30, 2025
Pre-trial conference | October 2025 (TBD)
Trial (6-week window) | November 2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK COMMERCIAL DIVISION

MERIDIAN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS LLC,

NORTHGATE FIBER AMERICAS INC.,

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE ORDER

SO ORDERED.

SERVICE:

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts