The Loan Source Inc. v. Newity LLC
1:22-cv-01255
D. Del.Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs The Loan Source Inc. and the 1993 Steven D. Kravitz Family Trust sued Defendants ACAP SME, LLC and Newity LLC, with discovery disputes central to the current procedural posture.
- Plaintiffs moved to extend certain interim case deadlines, citing deficiencies in Defendants’ document production and a subsequent court order compelling further production.
- The Court's recent Discovery Order granted several of Plaintiffs’ motions to compel, requiring Defendants to produce outstanding documents that Plaintiffs had been seeking since February 2025.
- Plaintiffs argued they could not proceed effectively with fact discovery until they received all required documents, necessitating an extension of deadlines.
- Defendants opposed the motion, citing their purported good faith efforts in discovery and challenging the relevance and propriety of certain discoverable issues.
- The Court ruled on June 30, 2025, to grant the Plaintiffs’ motion, amending case deadlines and denying Defendants’ request for oral argument as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good cause to extend scheduling order | Plaintiffs showed diligence: discovery delays were due to Defendants’ deficiencies, not their own lack of effort. | Plaintiffs failed to show good cause; Defendants’ own participation in discovery sufficed. | Extension granted; good cause found |
| Defendants’ participation in discovery | Defendants’ document productions were insufficient, justifying the request for extension. | Defendants acted in good faith and participated fully, so no extension needed; a scheduling change should not be required. | Defendants' participation insufficient |
| Prejudice to Defendants by extension | No prejudice to Defendants as the trial date and other key deadlines would not change. | Extension would cause unfair prejudice, but argument was not substantiated with facts. | No prejudice; extension allowed |
| Discovery relevant to alleged alter ego claim | Discovery supports already-pled claims that ACAP and Newity are essentially the same entity, not an improper new claim. | Plaintiffs are seeking irrelevant discovery on an unpled alter ego claim, attempting improper veil piercing. | Discovery allowed; issue already decided |
Key Cases Cited
(none with official reporter citations; all authorities cited appear to be unpublished or with only WL citations)