Cardew v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, 6:21-cv-06557

Plaintiffs, individuals with mobility-related disabilities incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility, brought a class action against the NYS Department of Corrections alleging systemic discrimination for failure to provide reasonable accommodations.
Plaintiffs filed a timely motion for class certification; Defendants failed to meet their court-imposed deadline to oppose.
Following the death of the original defense counsel and reassignment to new defense counsel, Defendants sought to file an untimely opposition based on new evidence obtained during discovery.
Plaintiffs moved for sanctions, seeking to strike Defendants’ late opposition and to recover costs/fees, arguing lack of good cause for the missed deadline.
The Court addressed which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governed the extension of time for Defendants’ late opposition, and evaluated whether good cause and excusable neglect justified accepting it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should Defendants' untimely opposition be struck?	Defendants failed to show "good cause" under FRCP 16(b); their opposition should be struck as untimely.	Discovery produced new evidence affecting class definition; Rule 6(b) allows consideration of late filings for excusable neglect.	Court accepts opposition; "good cause" and "excusable neglect" shown under Rule 6(b).
Are Plaintiffs prejudiced by late opposition?	Plaintiffs would be prejudiced if forced to respond now; delays harm Plaintiffs.	Plaintiffs are not prejudiced because they must still prove Rule 23 requirements whenever decided.	No prejudice to Plaintiffs; allowing response streamlines proceedings.
Which procedural rule governs extension here?	Rule 16(b)(4) applies—higher good cause standard due to scheduling order.	Rule 6(b)(1) governs because at issue is response deadline, not a FRCP 16 scheduling deadline.	Rule 6(b)(1) applies; more permissive standard for extending time after missed deadlines.
Are fees/sanctions against Defendants warranted?	Costs should be imposed for Defendants’ rule/order violations.	No basis for sanctions since delay was not in bad faith and new counsel acted promptly.	No fees or sanctions warranted; Defendants acted in good faith and without prejudice to Plaintiffs.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (Rule 23 requires rigorous analysis; evidence must actually support certification)
General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (Court must ensure actual, not presumed, compliance with Rule 23(a))
Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566 (2d Cir. 1982) (District court may allow discovery before class certification to ensure requirements are met)