Verificient Technologies, Inc. v. Dutta

Aug 7, 2025
1:24-cv-09487

MEMORANDUM ENDORSED

HERRICK FEINSTEIN LLP

Two Park Avenue

New York, NY 10016

MERRILL LAW

5825 Riverwood Drive

Atlanta, Georgia 30328

MILLS LAW GROUP LLP

800 Connecticut Avenue

N.W.

Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20006

Arthur G. Jakoby

Partner

(212) 592-1438

ajakoby@herrick.com

A.J. Merrill

(678) 532-7359

amerrill@aliantlaw.com

Timothy B. Mills

(202) 457-8090

timothy.mills@mills-lawgrp.com

August 6, 2025

BY ECF

The Honorable Gregory H. Woods

United States District Judge

U.S. District Court

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street, Room 2260

New York, NY 10007

Re: Verificient Technologies, Inc. v. Apratim Dutta (Civil Action No. 24-cv-9487-GHW) – Letter Motion: Request for Amendment of Scheduling Order [Dkt #70] to Provide Extension of Three (3) Calendar Days to Filing Due Dates for:

  1. Petitioner‘s Consolidated Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Vacate and in Support of Summary Judgment on Petition;
  2. Respondent‘s materials opposing the Petition to Confirm the Award, including Respondent‘s reply to Petitioner‘s L.Cv.R. 56.1 Response Statement; and
  3. Petitioner‘s Reply in response to Respondent‘s opposition to Petitioner‘s Petition to Confirm the Award

Dear Judge Woods:

We represent Petitioner Verificient Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Verificient“) in this matter. By this Letter Motion, Petitioner seeks: (a) extension of three (3) calendar days to the filing due dates for the above-referenced papers.

Petitioner did not receive Respondent‘s July 31, 2025 Revised L.Cv.R. 56.1 Statement [ECF #75] until three (3) calendar days after the date that the Order contemplated Petitioner would served. The reason for this is that since Mr. Dutta is pro se, even though he may have timely served the pro se office, it took three days for them to file it via ECF. Therefore, for good cause shown (see ¶¶ 1-6, infra), Petitioner asks the Court to extend the filing due dates provided by the Court‘s July 14, 2025 Order [Dkt. #70] (the “Order“) for the above-referenced filings as follows:

  1. For Petitioner‘s Consolidated Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Vacate and in Support of Summary Judgment on Petition:
    from Monday, August 11, 2025 to Thursday, August 14, 2025;
  2. For Respondent‘s materials opposing the Petition to Confirm the Award, including Respondent‘s reply to Petitioner‘s L.Cv.R. 56.1 Response Statement:
    from Monday, September 8, 2025 to Thursday, September 11, 2025; and
  3. For Petitioner‘s Reply in response to Respondent‘s opposition to Petitioner‘s Petition to Confirm:
    from Monday, September 22, 2025 to Monday, September 29, 2025.

    This due date needs to be extended by seven (7) days because, even if Respondent timely files his Reply (item (2) above) with the pro se office on Thursday September 11, 2025, it will likely not be posted on ECF and thus is not likely to be served on Petitioner until Monday, September 15, 2025 at the earliest. Since Petitioner was given two weeks to respond, this new response date should be September 29, 2025.

As good cause for such extensions, Petitioner states the following:

  1. The Order provided and contemplated that Respondent must file a revised Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts by not later than Monday, July 28, 2025 (“Respondent‘s Revised L.Cv.R. 56.1 Statement“), and Petitioner must file a Memorandum of Law in opposition to Respondent‘s motion to vacate and in support of its Petition fourteen (14) calendar days after Petitioner was served with Respondent‘s L.Cv.R. 56.1 Statement.
  2. Petitioner was served with Respondent‘s Revised L.Cv.R. 56.1 Statement on Thursday, July 31, 2025, via ECF [ECF #75], three calendar days after the date that the Order contemplated Petitioner would be so served.
  3. Petitioner requires the full fourteen (14) calendar days contemplated by the Order to prepare and file Petitioner‘s Consolidated Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Vacate and in Support of Summary Judgment on Petition.
  4. Amendment of the Scheduling Order [Dkt. #70] to now provide Petitioner with such fourteen (14) days to prepare and file Petitioner‘s Consolidated Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Vacate and in Support of Summary Judgment on Petition continues to give effect to the substance of the schedule originally set by the Order.
  5. The proposed amendments to the due dates for each of the above-referenced subsequent filings will preserve the original filing intervals for Subsequent Filings.
  6. Respondent will not be prejudiced by the Court granting the requested extensions.

Meet and Confer Statement

On August 4-6, 2025, Petitioner met and conferred with Respondent by email with respect to this motion. Respondent replied that Respondent opposes the requested extensions. A true and correct copy of such meet-and-confer communications is appended at Attachment 1.

A proposed order is attached.

Respectfully submitted,

ALIANT LAW/MERRILL LAW

By: /s/ A.J. Merrill

AJ Merrill

Lead Counsel for Petitioner Verificient Technologies, Inc.

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP

By: /s/ Arthur Jakoby

Arthur Jakoby

Co-Counsel for Petitioner Verificient Technologies, Inc.

MILLS LAW GROUP LLP

By: /s/ Timothy Mills

Timothy B. Mills

Co-Counsel for Petitioner Verificient Technologies, Inc.

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Application granted. The briefing schedule is extended as follows. No later than August 14, 2025, Petitioner must file a memorandum of law that sets out Petitioner‘s arguments both in support of the petition and in opposition to the motion to vacate; Petitioner must also file a response 56.1 Statement and all other supporting materials in opposition to Respondent‘s motion to vacate. No later than September 11, 2025, Respondent must file any materials opposing the petition to confirm the award and replying to Petitioner‘s opposition to the motion to vacate; Respondent may file a reply 56.1 Statement responding to Petitioner‘s response 56.1 statement regarding the motion to vacate. No later than September 29, 2025, Petitioner may file any reply to Respondent‘s opposition to the petition to confirm; Petitioner may file a reply 56.1 Statement regarding the petition to confirm the award. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 76.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2025

New York, New York

GREGORY H. WOODS

United States District Judge