Naprstek v. Marriot International, Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-08560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Naprstek v. Marriot International, Judge Cave set expert-discovery deadlines, denied judicial notice without prejudice, and paused summary-judgment scheduling.
Plaintiff Lubos Naprstek must meet the expert-discovery deadlines and pay the costs of his own expert discovery at this stage. Defendant Marriot International, Inc. may provide rebuttal experts and must participate in the expert-discovery schedule. The summary-judgment briefing schedule remains postponed for both parties.
What happened
In Naprstek v. Marriot International, Inc., the court issued scheduling instructions after receiving the parties’ status letter. The case involves Plaintiff Lubos Naprstek and Defendant Marriot International, Inc.; the order states that Naprstek is representing himself.
The court required Naprstek to disclose his expert testimony by November 25, 2024, allowed Marriot to provide rebuttal experts by December 20, and required all expert reports by January 17, 2025. The parties must jointly certify completion of expert discovery by January 24. Naprstek must pay the costs of his own expert discovery at this stage. The court also declined to set a settlement conference and postponed the summary-judgment briefing schedule until expert discovery is complete.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Naprstek’s request to take judicial notice of certain facts without prejudice, allowing him to renew it if appropriate during summary-judgment proceedings or trial. The order did not set a settlement conference at that time.
The detailed version
- Naprstek v. Marriot International, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08560
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 28, 2024
Background
The court received the parties’ status letter, identified as ECF No. 108, and issued an order addressing expert discovery, a request for judicial notice, settlement, and the timing of summary-judgment motions. The order states that Plaintiff Lubos Naprstek is proceeding without a lawyer.
Expert discovery
The court ordered the following schedule under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2):
- Naprstek must provide Marriot International, Inc. with his expert-testimony disclosures on or before November 25,
- The court warned that failing to provide the required disclosures may prevent him from offering expert testimony in the case. - Marriot may provide rebuttal expert witnesses on or before December 20,
- - All expert reports must be delivered on or before January 17,
- - The parties must file a joint letter certifying completion of expert discovery on or before January 24, 2025.
The court rejected Naprstek’s assertion that Marriot was required to pay for his expert discovery because he was proceeding without a lawyer. The order states that Naprstek must bear the costs of his own expert discovery at that stage of the case.
Request for judicial notice
Naprstek asked the court to take judicial notice of certain facts. The court denied that request without prejudice. This means the order did not permanently bar the request; it stated that Naprstek could renew it, if appropriate, during summary-judgment proceedings or trial.
Settlement and summary judgment
The court stated that no settlement conference would be set at that time. It also held the briefing schedule for summary-judgment motions in abeyance until expert discovery was complete.
Disposition
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the request for judicial notice without prejudice, ordered the expert-discovery schedule, declined to set a settlement conference at that time, and deferred the summary-judgment briefing schedule until expert discovery was completed. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.