743 F.Supp.3d 523
W.D.N.Y.2024Background
- Plaintiffs are individuals with disabilities in New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) facilities, alleging denial of assistive devices like wheelchairs and canes.
- Plaintiffs seek class certification; that motion is pending.
- Defendants (DOCCS) requested a brief discovery extension after serving discovery requests 12 days before the close of the discovery period—a period governed by a strict court scheduling order.
- Defendants' request follows the unexpected death of their lead counsel, AAG Brown, and the subsequent involvement of new counsel.
- Plaintiffs opposed the extension, and a dispute arose regarding the timeliness and propriety of Defendants' late-served discovery requests.
- Plaintiffs separately moved to preclude some defense witnesses, mainly seeking a conference on the matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extension of the discovery deadline should be granted under Rule 16(b)(4) | Defendants not diligent; had ample time for discovery requests | Extension warranted due to counsel's death, recent assignment, Plaintiffs also got stays | Denied; Defendants did not show diligence or good cause |
| Whether untimely discovery requests are permissible | Requests served too close to deadline are untimely | Circumstances justify delay; new counsel acted as soon as possible | Denied; requests are untimely per established authority |
| Whether Defendants' new counsel are bound by prior counsel's acts/omissions | Defendants bound by prior counsel's lack of discovery | Prior counsel's unexpected death should excuse delay | Defendants bound; new counsel cannot avoid consequences |
| Prejudice to Plaintiffs from further delay | Further delay prejudices Plaintiffs, case already delayed | Any delay would be minor, Plaintiffs not prejudiced | Plaintiffs prejudiced; further delay not allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) (movant for schedule modification bears burden of showing "good cause," meaning diligence)
- Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2009) (good cause for modification turns primarily on party’s diligence)
- Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp., 769 F.2d 919 (2d Cir. 1985) (party's ample opportunity to conduct discovery undermines extension request)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (parties are bound by acts or omissions of chosen counsel)
- Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964) (court may not expand the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by disregarding clear limits)