Khmaladze v. Vorotyntsev
- Gregory Woods
- 1:16-cv-08029
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Khmaladze v. Vorotyntsev, Judge Woods denied Vorotyntsev’s requests to amend pleadings, reopen discovery, and reconsider partial summary judgment.
Mikhail Vorotyntsev, who sought all three forms of relief, and the other parties whose litigation would have been delayed or expanded if the requests were granted.
What happened
In Khmaladze v. Vorotyntsev, Defendant Mikhail Vorotyntsev asked the court to amend his pleadings, reopen discovery, and reconsider an earlier partial summary judgment order. He also sought guidance because he was representing himself.
The court found that Vorotyntsev had not acted diligently: the deadline to amend pleadings was more than five years earlier, discovery had closed, and the case was ready for trial. The court also found that reopening discovery or allowing new claims and parties would delay the case and prejudice the other parties. His reconsideration request identified no law or evidence the court had overlooked.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied all three requests. The court also denied him permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal from this order, after certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Khmaladze v. Vorotyntsev · No. 1:16-cv-08029
- Gregory Woods
- Oct. 8, 2024
Background
Defendant Mikhail Vorotyntsev filed a letter requesting 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 requested guidance because he was proceeding 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. The scheduling order set June 22, 2019 as the deadline for motions to amend. The court found that Vorotyntsev had not shown diligence: more than five years had passed, discovery had closed, and the court had already issued a summary judgment decision. His request also did not explain what new evidence or claims justified amendment.
The court further found that amendment would significantly prejudice the other parties. Adding claims would likely require substantial additional motion practice, while adding parties would require repeating discovery that had been completed in November 2020. The court therefore denied the amendment request because of the lack of diligence, insufficient justification, and risk of significant prejudice.
Request to Reopen Discovery
The court denied the request to reopen discovery. The deadline for completing fact discovery had been October 6, 2020, and the court had previously denied multiple requests by defendants to reopen discovery. The court found that Vorotyntsev had opportunities during the discovery period to investigate additional evidence and claims but waited until after the court had dismissed several claims and counterclaims at summary judgment. The court concluded that he had not shown the required justification for reopening discovery, particularly given the delay that would result in an already extended case.
Request for Reconsideration
The court denied Vorotyntsev’s request to reconsider the partial summary judgment order. His letter referred to alleged inconsistencies but did not explain what they were or identify controlling law or facts that the court had overlooked. The court noted that a separate reconsideration motion filed by corporate entities associated with Vorotyntsev remained pending and would be addressed separately.
Disposition
The court denied Vorotyntsev’s requests for leave to amend his pleadings, for reopening discovery, and for reconsideration of the partial summary judgment order. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Vorotyntsev by certified mail.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.