Cordero Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA
1:25-cv-02857
| S.D.N.Y. | Jul 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Michael Cordero Romero filed a motion seeking an order compelling Defendant Goldman Sachs Bank USA to provide limited, targeted evidence needed for his forthcoming sur-reply regarding a motion to compel arbitration.
- Plaintiff specifically requested the call transcript or recording from his January 7, 2025, call to customer service, internal onboarding communications, and evidence showing his actions in the online account application portal.
- The Court interpreted Plaintiff’s pro se motion as a request for expedited, narrowly tailored discovery related to the contested arbitration agreement.
- Defendant both challenged and offered to produce most of the requested information, with conditions, but did not formally move for a protective order.
- The Court found that further factual development was needed to resolve gaps in the record about Plaintiff’s bank account setup, and that the Defendant would not be prejudiced by limited discovery.
- The Court ordered Defendant to produce the requested materials within a week, allowed supplemental briefing limited to these materials, and extended Plaintiff’s sur-reply deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Need for expedited, limited discovery | Needs evidence to oppose arbitration | Scope should be limited; offers partial consent | Court grants limited expedited discovery |
| Appropriateness of additional discovery | Seeks more discovery in reply brief | Objects, no chance to respond | Additional discovery requests in reply denied |
| Protective order (re: produced info) | No specific position on protective order | Production conditional on protective order | No protective order issued absent formal motion |
| Timing and need for sur-reply extension | Needs more time to prepare sur-reply | No explicit objection | Sur-reply deadline extended for Plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayyash v. Bank Al-Madina, 233 F.R.D. 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (sets standard for court-authorized expedited discovery; "flexible reasonableness and good cause")
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (sets out standard for certifying good faith for appeal under IFP status)