Rich v. State of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-03835
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rich v. State of New York, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied Benjamin Samuel Rich’s motion to compel discovery as untimely.
Benjamin Samuel Rich’s discovery request was denied; the defendants were not required by this order to produce the requested documents.
What happened
In Rich v. State of New York, Benjamin Samuel Rich asked the court to order the defendants to produce documents while the parties were briefing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The opinion noted that Rich did not say he had served the document requests or discussed the dispute with the defendants before filing the motion.
The court denied the motion because Rich filed it more than two months after discovery ended, despite scheduling orders requiring discovery disputes to be raised promptly and generally at least 30 days before the discovery deadline. The court also noted that Rich had previously opposed extending discovery and had told the court that he was ready to proceed to trial.
Magistrate Judge Gorenstein ruled that reopening discovery would cause unnecessary delay and disrupt the summary-judgment briefing. The court therefore denied Rich’s application to compel discovery, Docket 165.
The detailed version
- Rich v. State of New York · No. 1:21-cv-03835
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 3, 2025
Background
Benjamin Samuel Rich filed a motion to compel discovery while opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. He sought a range of documents from the defendants. The court noted that the motion did not state that Rich had served the document requests before filing the motion, and it did not state that he had conferred with the defendants. The court also noted that Rich had not followed the court’s practice requiring permission to file the motion.
The court nevertheless decided the motion on timeliness grounds. An August 4, 2022 scheduling order required discovery and discovery-related applications to be initiated in time to be completed by the discovery deadline. It also required disputes about discovery responses to be brought to the court’s attention immediately and stated that, absent extraordinary circumstances, discovery motions would not be considered if filed later than 30 days before discovery closed. The January 11, 2024 scheduling order repeated those requirements.
The original discovery deadline was December 1, 2022. Discovery was later stayed while a dispositive motion was pending, the stay was lifted on December 5, 2023, and a new deadline of June 14, 2024 was set. The deadline was eventually extended to December 4, 2024. Rich filed the motion to compel more than two months after that deadline and while the defendants’ summary-judgment motion was being briefed.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found that Rich had not previously brought the alleged discovery dispute—or any discovery dispute—to the court’s attention. It also relied on Rich’s earlier statements opposing a further discovery extension, including that additional discovery would not serve the interests of justice and that he was ready to proceed to trial.
Because the dispute was raised after the discovery deadline and contrary to the court’s explicit scheduling orders, the court held that the motion was untimely. Restarting discovery would cause unnecessary delay and disrupt the summary-judgment briefing.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied Rich’s application to compel discovery, Docket 165. The opinion does not state a ruling on the defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.