Tatintsian v. Vorotyntsev

Background

Defendant Mikhail Vorotyntsev filed a letter seeking three forms of relief: permission to amend his pleadings, reopening of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), and reconsideration of the court’s August 6, 2024 partial summary-judgment order. He also asked for guidance because he was representing himself without a lawyer. The court stated that it had referred him to the court’s Pro Se Office and to the New York City Bar Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project.

Request to Amend the Pleadings

The court denied Vorotyntsev’s request to amend his pleadings to add counterclaims and additional counter-plaintiffs. Under Rule 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that good cause depends largely on the moving party’s diligence, while also considering prejudice to the opposing parties.

The court found that Vorotyntsev had not shown sufficient diligence. The scheduling order set June 22, 2019 as the deadline for motions to amend, but he waited more than five years to raise the issue. Discovery had closed, the court had already issued a summary-judgment decision, and his request did not explain what new evidence or claims justified amendment. The court also found that amendment would prejudice the other parties by requiring additional motion practice and potentially repeating discovery that had been completed in November 2020.

Request to Reopen Discovery

The court denied the request to reopen discovery. The most recent case-management order set October 6, 2020 as the deadline for completing fact discovery, and the court had previously denied multiple requests by defendants to reopen discovery. The court found that Vorotyntsev had opportunities during discovery to investigate additional evidence and claims but waited until after summary judgment had dismissed several claims and counterclaims. The court concluded that his reasons did not establish good cause, particularly given the likely delay in an already lengthy case.

Request for Reconsideration

The court denied Vorotyntsev’s request to reconsider the partial summary-judgment order. He referred generally to a more complete factual record and inconsistencies but did not identify the alleged inconsistencies or provide case law, evidence, or other controlling material that the court had overlooked. The court also noted that a separate reconsideration motion filed by corporate entities associated with Vorotyntsev remained pending and would be addressed later.

Disposition

The court denied Vorotyntsev’s requests for leave to amend his pleadings, to reopen discovery, and to reconsider the partial summary-judgment order. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied filing-fee assistance for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to send the order by certified mail to Mikhail Vorotyntsev and Elena Vorotyntsev.