Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-05731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department, Judge Moses denied the plaintiff’s request for a second status conference without prejudice.
Saul Sabino, whose request for a second status conference was denied without prejudice; any renewed request must explain the conference’s purpose and the judicial action sought.
What happened
In Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department, the plaintiff requested a second status conference but did not explain what specific relief or court action he wanted.
The court stated that, if the plaintiff renews the request, he must explain the conference’s purpose and identify the order or other action he seeks. The court also addressed possible depositions after the fact-discovery deadline, explaining that reopening discovery requires a showing of good cause and diligence.
Judge Barbara Moses denied the application without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to renew it with the required explanation.
The detailed version
- Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department · No. 1:21-cv-05731
- John Koeltl
- Nov. 21, 2024
Background
Saul Sabino requested a “second status conference.” The opinion states that he did not disclose what substantive relief, if any, he sought.
Court’s analysis
The court directed that any renewed request must explain the purpose of the conference and advise the court what order or other judicial action the plaintiff seeks.
The court also addressed a possible request for permission to conduct depositions after the deadline for completing fact discovery had passed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), reopening the discovery period requires “good cause.” The court explained that good cause requires showing diligence in attempting to comply with the existing scheduling order, and that the person seeking to reopen discovery bears that burden.
Disposition
Judge Barbara Moses denied the plaintiff’s application without prejudice. The order therefore permits a renewed request, but requires the plaintiff to provide the information specified by the court. The opinion does not state that the court granted permission to conduct any depositions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.