Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 14, 2025

Naprstek v. Marriot International, Inc.

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:21-cv-08560
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Naprstek v. Marriot International, Inc., Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave extended expert-discovery deadlines after finding Plaintiff’s disclosure deficient.

Who this affects

The order affects Plaintiff Lubos Naprstek and the defendants by extending the deadlines for expert reports and expert discovery.

What happened

In Naprstek v. Marriot International, Inc., Defendants argued that Plaintiff Lubos Naprstek’s proposed expert disclosure did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). The order also notes that Naprstek was representing himself.

The court extended the expert-discovery schedule with Defendants’ consent. Naprstek had to submit a compliant written expert report by February 21, 2025; any rebuttal report was due March 21, 2025; expert discovery had to end by April 4, 2025; and the parties had to file a joint certification by April 11, 2025.

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave warned that failing to submit the report by February 21 would likely prevent Naprstek from presenting an expert in the case. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Naprstek.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Naprstek v. Marriot International, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08560
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Jan. 14, 2025

Background

Defendants argued that Plaintiff Lubos Naprstek’s purported expert disclosure, filed as ECF No. 113, was deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), which governs expert disclosures. The order states that Defendants were correct. It also refers to Naprstek’s pro se status, meaning he was proceeding without a lawyer.

Order

Because Defendants consented to extending expert discovery, the court extended the deadlines as follows:

- Naprstek’s written expert report, complying with Rule 26(a)(2), was due February 21,

  1. - Any rebuttal expert report was due March 21,
  2. - All expert discovery had to conclude by April 4,
  3. - By April 11, 2025, the parties had to file a joint letter certifying that expert discovery was complete.

Warning and Disposition

The court warned that failure to submit the written expert report by February 21, 2025, would likely foreclose Naprstek’s ability to offer an expert in the case. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Naprstek. The order was issued by Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.