Sertel Screw and Nail Corp. v. Independent Logistics
- Figueredo
- 1:23-cv-10315
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sertel Screw v. Independent Logistics, Judge Figueredo denied reopening discovery because Sertel had not shown diligence.
Sertel Screw and Nail Corp., which sought additional discovery, and the defendants, who opposed reopening discovery.
What happened
Sertel Screw and Nail Corp. asked the court to reopen fact discovery, which had ended on April 1, 2025. Sertel sought additional time to depose Matt Peace and one of the defendants; the defendants opposed the request.
The court found that Sertel waited more than three months after discovery closed to seek reopening. Sertel did not adequately explain why it could not complete the requested discovery earlier or provide enough details about its efforts to locate and subpoena Peace.
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied the request to reopen discovery and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the related letter motions at ECF Nos. 44–46.
The detailed version
- Sertel Screw and Nail Corp. v. Independent Logistics · No. 1:23-cv-10315
- Figueredo
- July 21, 2025
Background
On July 14, 2025, Sertel Screw and Nail Corp. submitted a letter asking the court to extend the fact-discovery deadline to September 15, 2025. The existing deadline was April 1, 2025, so the request sought to reopen discovery. The defendants opposed the request.
Sertel wanted to depose Matt Peace and complete the deposition of one of the defendants. Sertel stated that the January 30, 2025, deposition of the owner of Independent Logistics revealed Peace’s identity. Sertel also said it faced delays in serving a subpoena because it had difficulty locating Peace’s contact information.
Court’s Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified for good cause. The court explained that discovery generally should be reopened only when the requesting party shows that, despite diligence, it could not reasonably meet the existing deadline.
The court concluded that Sertel had not shown the required diligence. Sertel did not explain why it waited from January 30 until July 14 to seek permission to pursue discovery concerning Peace. It also did not describe the efforts it made to locate Peace’s contact information or serve a subpoena before discovery closed. The court further found that Sertel had not explained why it could not depose a named defendant before the deadline. Sertel’s assertion that the delays were beyond its control was described as conclusory and unsupported by factual details.
Disposition
The court denied Sertel’s request to reopen discovery. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the letter motions at ECF Nos. 44–46.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.