320 F. Supp. 3d 511
E.D.N.Y2018Background
- Plaintiff sued defendants (including Nassau and Suffolk Counties) and after years of discovery the parties had completed fact and expert discovery and were preparing a summary judgment schedule.
- Nassau County (new counsel in 2014) served late discovery demands in Feb. 2018 seeking Suffolk County Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) documents and a deposition of an SCPD investigator.
- Plaintiff objected; the Court advised Nassau to move to re-open discovery and show good cause under the six-factor Pharmacy Inc. test.
- Nassau argued its 2015 motion to quash regarding Nassau IAU materials and the Court’s March/Feb. 2018 rulings justified obtaining corresponding Suffolk materials.
- Plaintiff argued Nassau had ample opportunity during multiple prior discovery extensions (numerous deadline extensions from 2012–2017) and failed to show diligence or good cause for reopening discovery.
- The Magistrate applied the six-factor test, found Nassau was not diligent and had foreseen the need for this evidence, but declined to preclude the discovery as a sanction and granted limited reopening (produce documents by July 5, 2018; one investigator deposition by July 24, 2018; costs of transcript borne by Nassau).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery should be re-opened at this late stage | Nassau had ample prior opportunity; reopening prejudices plaintiff and delays resolution | Discovery not closed; requests mirror plaintiff’s earlier subpoena and follow court rulings allowing certain IAU-related discovery | Limited reopening granted for narrow purposes (document production + one investigator deposition); overall motion granted in part |
| Whether Nassau showed diligence/good cause to reopen discovery | Nassau was not diligent; strategic choices in 2015 caused delay | No delay by Nassau; prior rulings (e.g., denying quash) justify seeking Suffolk materials later | Court found Nassau not diligent and foreseeable need; factor favors plaintiff |
| Whether non-movant (plaintiff) would be prejudiced by reopening | Reopening causes expense, delay, witness memory erosion, and unfair surprise | Any prejudice is minimal and manageable; Suffolk cooperates | Court found prejudice to plaintiff slight but not dispositive; ordered measures to mitigate prejudice |
| Likelihood that requested Suffolk discovery is relevant | Relevance speculative; Nassau must show specific relevance | Suffolk and Nassau independent IAU investigations likely contain relevant evidence on alleged conspiracy | Court deemed relevance plausible but not shown with specificity; factor neutral |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp., 769 F.2d 919 (2d Cir.) (denial of reopening discovery where party had ample time to pursue requested discovery)
- Wills v. Amerada Hess Corp., 379 F.3d 32 (2d Cir.) (district court has broad discretion to manage pre-trial discovery)
- Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80 (2d Cir.) (diligence of moving party crucial to good cause analysis for reopening discovery)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir.) (good-cause depends on diligence of moving party)
- Valentin v. County of Suffolk, [citation="342 F. App'x 661"] (2d Cir.) (district court within discretion to impose lesser sanctions than preclusion for late disclosures)
- Bakalar v. Vavra, 851 F. Supp. 2d 489 (S.D.N.Y.) (courts consider good cause and prejudice when deciding whether to reopen discovery)