| Rahul
Siddharth of Verificient
Is Sued By Staffer For
Urging Abortion now New
Lawyer so Nov 7
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
Book
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Oct 6 –
Rahul Siddharth of Verificient
Technologies has been sued by
an ex-employee who says he got
her pregnant and implored her
to abort her
pregnancy.
On
February 25, U.S. District
Court for the Southern
District of New York
Judge Andrew L. Carter held a
proceeding. Inner City Press
covered it.
The
plaintiff says she reluctantly
aborted her pregnancy and that
Rahul Siddharth never paid her
the promised
$45,000.
There was talk of JAMS
mediation.
Judge Carter said
to hold off, then, on motions.
He asked for a joint status
report on mediation by May 20.
On April 1, the
parties reappeared before the
assigned Magistrate Judge,
Stuart D. Aaron. A request for
more interrogatories, and to
strike or seal, was denied.
Over the weekend
of July 16-17, this: "ORDER
with respect to [40] Letter
Motion to Compel: Plaintiffs'
motion made on Saturday,
7/16/2022, to compel a
defendant to appear for
deposition on Wednesday,
7/20/2022, in circumstances
where that defendant's counsel
was non-responsive on Friday,
7/15/2022, is DENIED. In that
regard, the Court notes that
Plaintiffs' counsel failed to
provide the Court with a copy
of the deposition notice, or
the date that it was served.
No later than Wednesday,
7/20/2022, Defendants' counsel
shall respond to that portion
of Plaintiffs' motion that
seeks sanctions against him
and his client. The Court
shall hold a telephone
conference on Friday,
7/22/2022."
On July 21,
plaintiff's counsel filed a
letter with Judge Aaron
recounting that Siddharth
failed to appear for a July 15
deposition and that his
lawyer's "phone appears to be
disconnected."
On July 22, Judge
Aaron held the proceeding and
Inner City Press covered it.
But the defense lawyer did not
appear. Judge Aaron set
another - final? - conference
for August 25 at 11 am, with
the lawyer to show cause why
he should not be sanctions,
and with Siddharth ordered to
appear himself. Is default
coming?
Note yet. On
October 6, this: "ORDER:
Following a telephone
conference with the parties,
it is hereby Ordered as
follows: 1. In view of
successor counsel having
appeared on behalf of
Defendants and the
representations of prior
counsel Henry Bell (see, e.g.,
8/25/2022 Letter, ECF No. 47),
Mr. Bell is hereby relieved as
counsel. However, Mr. Bell
shall continue to cooperate
with successor counsel as
indicated in his August 25,
2022 Letter. 2. The deadline
for Defendants to respond to
the Amended Complaint is
extended, nunc pro tunc, until
November 7, 2022. 3. The
deadline for the completion of
all discovery is extended
until February 3, 2023.
Extensions shall be granted
for good cause shown. SO
ORDERED. SCG Siddharth
Creative Group Inc. answer due
11/7/2022; Rahul Siddharth
answer due 11/7/2022;
Verificient Technologies Inc
answer due 11/7/2022.(
Discovery due by 2/3/2023.)
(Signed by Magistrate Judge
Stewart D. Aaron on
10/6/2022)."
The case is Doe
v. Siddharth et al.,
21-cv-4285 (Carter / Aaron).
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a
month helps keep us going and grants you
access to exclusive bonus material on our
Patreon page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
