Best v. Merchant
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-00779
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Best v. Merchant, Judge Woods denied Best’s request to reconsider keeping discovery closed.
The ruling affected Hilary Best’s requests to conduct additional depositions and document discovery, and Best’s request to appeal without prepaying court fees.
What happened
In Best v. Merchant, Hilary Best asked the court to reconsider its decision not to reopen discovery. The court had extended discovery several times, ultimately setting April 30, 2025, as the deadline for Best to complete remote depositions of James Merchant and another defendant.
Best submitted medical records showing hospitalizations on March 27–31 and April 5–6, 2025. The court found that the records did not explain why Best could not contact the defendants about scheduling the depositions during the rest of the deadline period. The court also considered Best’s repeated failure to complete discovery after multiple extensions.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied reconsideration and kept discovery closed, including document discovery. The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Best permission to appeal without prepaying court fees.
The detailed version
- Best v. Merchant · No. 1:21-cv-00779
- Gregory Woods
- May 28, 2025
Background
The court had set August 21, 2023, as the original discovery deadline and extended it several times. The extensions eventually allowed discovery to continue through April 30, 2025, for the limited purpose of completing remote depositions of James Merchant and Acosta. The court described the April 30 deadline as a “hard deadline” and had previously warned that it would not grant further extensions except for circumstances such as a natural disaster or other event that prevented the work from being done.
The court stated that Best had failed to complete discovery over more than two years and had not taken steps during the final extension to schedule the two remote depositions. Best later represented that hospitalizations prevented the depositions. The court noted, however, that the medical records attached to Best’s reconsideration request showed hospitalizations from March 27 through March 31, 2025, and again on April 5 and April 6, 2025. The court found that Best had more than a week before the first hospitalization and more than three weeks after the last hospitalization to contact the defendants about scheduling the depositions.
Motion and ruling
Best moved for reconsideration of the court’s May 21, 2025 decision not to reopen discovery. Reconsideration is a request for the court to change an earlier decision. The court concluded that the medical records did not justify changing its decision and that Best had repeatedly failed to act diligently in discovery.
The court denied the request to reopen discovery. To the extent Best also sought reconsideration of the decision not to reopen document discovery concerning information learned during Merchant’s deposition, the court likewise denied that request. The court noted that it had already denied that document-discovery request three times.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Best permission to appeal without prepaying court fees. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Hilary Best by certified mail.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it concerns discovery management, reconsideration of a prior discovery decision, and payment status for an appeal; it does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.