282 F.R.D. 76
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs purchased secondary-market life insurance policies from Coventry First LLC, Coventry Group, Montgomery Capital, and LST I LLC.
- Plaintiffs sought to vacate a February 17, 2012 magistrate order denying untimely rebuttal actuarial expert reports.
- Expert discovery schedule: Plaintiffs’ experts due Nov. 9, 2011; Defendants’ reports due Dec. 21, 2011; amended Jan. 9, 2012; close Feb. 24, 2012.
- Behan & Chaplin Report contended contract price was inflated by improper actuarial assumptions, suggesting market value lower than purchase price.
- Magistrate Judge Freeman’s order denied rebuttal, citing lack of good cause and Plaintiffs’ diligence; the district court affirmed and denied vacatur.
- Court ordered that further disputes on expert discovery proceed before Freeman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause existed to reopen expert discovery | Plaintiff argues Defendants bear burden to dispute contract price; reopening necessary for rebuttal. | Defendants contend scheduling order had no provision for rebuttal; lack of diligence. | No; no good cause to reopen; order affirmed. |
| Whether Plaintiffs acted with due diligence | Plaintiff asserts surprise at Behan & Chaplin position necessitating rebuttal. | Plaintiffs had Behan & Chaplin in unredacted form for over a month and did not seek rebuttal sooner. | No; Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate diligence sufficient for modification. |
| Whether the court properly allocated burdens and followed the scheduling order | Plaintiff contends burden to prove market value should shift with rebuttal evidence. | Rule 16(b)(4) scheduling order unaltered; no rebuttal evidence allowed. | Yes; order correctly applied Rule 16(b)(4) and the scheduling order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen, 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (good cause for scheduling modifications hinges on movant’s diligence)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) (good cause analysis for modifying scheduling order)
- Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2009) (burden on movant for good cause; discovery issues)
- Enzymotec Ltd. v. NBTY, Inc., 754 F.Supp.2d 527 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (good cause and diligence in extending discovery)
- DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F.Supp. 1330 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (considerations for nondispositive discovery rulings)